ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Comparison of Online Visual Acuity Testing with Dynamic Dyop and Static LogMAR Optotypes in Healthy Non-Presbyopic and Presbyopic Individuals.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Visual acuity (VA) is typically measured using stationary optotypes, though real-world visual experiences involve dynamic targets. The Dyop (dynamic optotype) VA test is a computerized motion perception assessment designed to simulate daily visual experiences. With the rise of telemedicine, this study examined the feasibility and agreement between virtual online VA testing using Dyop compared to standard LogMAR optotypes in non-presbyopic and presbyopic participants. Methods: After an initial online Zoom Results: Of the 110 participants, (70% females, mean age: 32.5 ± 13.0, range: 18-60), 73 (66%) were considered non-presbyopic (mean age: 24.1 ± 4.9, range: 18-39), and 37 (34%) were presbyopic (mean age: 49.0 ± 6.4, range: 40-60). The mean VA measured with the Dyop and LogMAR charts for the entire cohort (0.09 and 0.08), for the non-presbyopic (0.09 and 0.07) and the presbyopic (0.10 and 0.09) sub-groups was significantly positively correlated (r = 0.80, p < 0.001, r = 0.82, p < 0.001 and r = 0.72, p < 0.001, respectively), with a small mean difference (-0.01 ± 0.08, -0.02 ± 0.08, -0.01 ± 0.09 log units), for the entire cohort, the non-presbyopic, and the presbyopic, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two tests for the whole cohort (p = 0.80), for group 1 (p = 0.98) and for group 2 (p = 0.62). Conclusion: This study demonstrated the feasibility of online VA measurements and that online VA measurements using Dyop and LogMAR optotypes are interchangeable in healthy non-presbyopic and presbyopic participants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.