TY  - JOUR
AU  - Suo, Lingge
AU  - Ke, Xianghan
AU  - Zhang, Di
AU  - Qin, Xuejiao
AU  - Chen, Xuhao
AU  - Hong, Ying
AU  - Dai, Wanwei
AU  - Wu, Defu
AU  - Zhang, Chun
AU  - Zhang, Dongsong
PY  - 2022
DA  - 2022/2/14
TI  - Use of Mobile Apps for Visual Acuity Assessment: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
JO  - JMIR Mhealth Uhealth
SP  - e26275
VL  - 10
IS  - 2
KW  - smartphone
KW  - iPad
KW  - eye screening
KW  - visual acuity
KW  - app
KW  - meta-analysis
AB  - Background: Vision impairments (VIs) and blindness are major global public health issues. A visual acuity (VA) test is one of the most crucial standard psychophysical tests of visual function and has been widely used in a broad range of health care domains, especially in many clinical settings. In recent years, there has been increasing research on mobile app–based VA assessment designed to allow people to test their VA at any time and any location. Objective: The goal of the review was to assess the accuracy and reliability of using mobile VA measurement apps. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar for relevant articles on mobile apps for VA assessment published between January 1, 2008, and July 1, 2020. Two researchers independently inspected and selected relevant studies. Eventually, we included 22 studies that assessed tablet or smartphone apps for VA measurement. We then analyzed sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy in the 6 papers we found through a meta-analysis. Results: Most of the 22 selected studies can be considered of high quality based on the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies–2. In a meta-analysis of 6 studies involving 24,284 participants, we categorized the studies based on the age groups of the study participants (ie, aged 3-5 years, aged 6-22 years, and aged 55 years and older), examiner (ie, professional and nonprofessional examiners), and the type of mobile devices (ie, smartphone, iPad). In the group aged 3 to 5 years, the pooled sensitivity for VA app tests versus clinical VA tests was 0.87 (95% CI 0.79-0.93; P=.39), and the pooled specificity was 0.78 (95% CI 0.70-0.85; P=.37). In the group aged 6 to 22 years, the pooled sensitivity for VA app tests versus clinical VA tests was 0.86 (95% CI 0.84-0.87; P<.001), and the pooled specificity for VA app tests versus clinical VA tests was 0.91 (95% CI 0.90-0.91; P=.27). In the group aged 55 years and older, the pooled sensitivity for VA app tests versus clinical VA tests was 0.85 (95% CI 0.55-0.98), and the pooled specificity for VA app tests versus clinical VA tests was 0.98 (95% CI 0.95-0.99). We found that the nonprofessional examiner group (AUC 0.93) had higher accuracy than the professional examiner group (AUC 0.87). In the iPad-based group, the pooled sensitivity for VA app tests versus clinical VA tests was 0.86, and the pooled specificity was 0.79. In the smartphone-based group, the pooled sensitivity for VA app tests versus clinical VA tests was 0.86 (P<.001), and the pooled specificity for VA app tests versus clinical VA tests was 0.91 (P<.001). Conclusions: In this study, we conducted a comprehensive review of the research on existing mobile apps for VA tests to investigate their diagnostic value and limitations. Evidence gained from this study suggests that mobile app–based VA tests can be useful for on-demand VI detection. 
SN  - 2291-5222
UR  - https://mhealth.jmir.org/2022/2/e26275
UR  - https://doi.org/10.2196/26275
UR  - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35156935
DO  - 10.2196/26275
ID  - info:doi/10.2196/26275
ER  -