ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2025
Near Visual Acuity Measurements by Community Screeners Using Digital (Peek) Testing Versus Conventional Charts in India.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: The Peek digital near vision test has been previously validated in a trial setting; here it is assessed in clinic (stage 1) and community (stage 2) settings. Methods: The study was carried out in the catchment area of Dr. Shroff's Charity Eye Hospital, Mohammadi, Uttar Pradesh, India, with a total of 768 participants. Stage 1 assessed the interobserver variability of Peek near vision impairment (NVI) screening in 168 clinic participants, with three trained community screeners. Stage 2 compared Peek to conventional chart testing for NVI screening using Cohen's kappa coefficient, sensitivity, and specificity and, for quantitative near visual acuity (NVA) measurement, using Bland-Altman limits of agreement (LoA) in 600 participants with two screeners. Results: In stage 1, interobserver variability using Peek ranged from 96.43% to 98.21% (kappa = 0.92-0.96). In stage 2, there was overall agreement in 95.8% of cases (kappa = 0.91). Peek testing had a sensitivity and specificity of 91.25% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87.22-94.1) and 99.41% (95% CI, 97.86-99.84), respectively. For NVA testing, the 95% LoA between Peek and chart testing were within -0.11 and +0.07 logMAR. Mean test time was 40.3 seconds (95% CI, 38.8-41.7) for Peek versus 46.6 seconds (95% CI, 45.5-47.7) for a conventional chart. Conclusions: The previously demonstrated validity of Peek testing was maintained when used by trained community screeners. Translational Relevance: The Peek near vision test can be used as a validated method of NVA/NVI measurement in research, clinical and community settings.
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.