↓ Skip to main content

Visual acuity measured with a smartphone app is more accurate than Snellen testing by emergency department providers

Overview of attention for article published in Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
110 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Visual acuity measured with a smartphone app is more accurate than Snellen testing by emergency department providers
Published in
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00417-016-3291-4
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To assess the accuracy of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) measured by non-ophthalmic emergency department (ED) staff with a standard Snellen chart versus an automated application (app) on a handheld smartphone (Paxos Checkup, San Francisco, CA, USA). The study included 128 subjects who presented to the Stanford Hospital ED for whom the ED requested an ophthalmology consultation. We conducted the study in two phases. During phase 1 of the study, ED staff tested patient BCVA using a standard Snellen test at 20 feet. During phase 2 of the study, ED staff tested patient near BCVA using the app. During both phases, ophthalmologists measured BCVA with a Rosenbaum near chart, which was treated as the gold standard. ED BCVA measurements were benchmarked prospectively against ophthalmologists' measurements and converted to logMAR. ED logMAR BCVA was 0.21 ± 0.35 (approximately 2 Snellen lines difference ± 3 Snellen lines) higher than that of ophthalmologists when ED staff used a Snellen chart (p = .0.00003). ED BCVA was 0.06 ± 0.40 (less than 1 Snellen line ± 4 Snellen lines) higher when ED staff used the app (p = 0.246). Inter-observer difference was therefore smaller by more than 1 line (0.15 logMAR) with the app (p = 0.046). BCVA measured by non-ophthalmic ED staff with an app was more accurate than with a Snellen chart. Automated apps may provide a means to standardize and improve the efficiency of ED ophthalmologic care.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 109 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Student > Master 11 10%
Other 8 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Researcher 7 6%
Other 22 20%
Unknown 44 40%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Computer Science 6 5%
Engineering 5 5%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 50 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 April 2017.
All research outputs
#21,157,205
of 25,988,468 outputs
Outputs from Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology
#2
of 2 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#232,821
of 313,738 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology
#16
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,988,468 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 0.5. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,738 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.