Development and Validation of a Smartphone-Based Visual Acuity Test (Peek Acuity) for Clinical Practice and Community-Based Fieldwork.

IMPORTANCE Visual acuity is the most frequently performed measure of visual function in clinical practice and most people worldwide living with visual impairment are living in low- and middle-income countries. OBJECTIVE To design and validate a smartphone-based visual acuity test that is not dependent on familiarity with symbols or letters commonly used in the English language. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Validation study conducted from December 11, 2013, to March 4, 2014, comparing results from smartphone-based Peek Acuity to Snellen acuity (clinical normal) charts and the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) logMAR chart (reference standard). This study was nested within the 6-year follow-up of the Nakuru Eye Disease Cohort in central Kenya and included 300 adults aged 55 years and older recruited consecutively. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Outcome measures were monocular logMAR visual acuity scores for each test: ETDRS chart logMAR, Snellen acuity, and Peek Acuity. Peek Acuity was compared, in terms of test-retest variability and measurement time, with the Snellen acuity and ETDRS logMAR charts in participants' homes and temporary clinic settings in rural Kenya in 2013 and 2014. RESULTS The 95% CI limits for test-retest variability of smartphone acuity data were ±0.033 logMAR. The mean differences between the smartphone-based test and the ETDRS chart and the smartphone-based test and Snellen acuity data were 0.07 (95% CI, 0.05-0.09) and 0.08 (95% CI, 0.06-0.10) logMAR, respectively, indicating that smartphone-based test acuities agreed well with those of the ETDRS and Snellen charts. The agreement of Peek Acuity and the ETDRS chart was greater than the Snellen chart with the ETDRS chart (95% CI, 0.05-0.10; P = .08). The local Kenyan community health care workers readily accepted the Peek Acuity smartphone test; it required minimal training and took no longer than the Snellen test (77 seconds vs 82 seconds; 95% CI, 71-84 seconds vs 73-91 seconds, respectively; P = .13). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The study demonstrated that the Peek Acuity smartphone test is capable of accurate and repeatable acuity measurements consistent with published data on the test-retest variability of acuities measured using 5-letter-per-line retroilluminated logMAR charts.

[1]  R. Hetherington.  The Shellen chart as a test of visual acuity , 1954, Psychologische Forschung.

[2]  I L Bailey,et al.  New Design Principles for Visual Acuity Letter Charts* , 1976, American journal of optometry and physiological optics.

[3]  F. Ferris,et al.  New visual acuity charts for clinical research. , 1982, American journal of ophthalmology.

[4]  J M Bland,et al.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement , 1986 .

[5]  A. Wilson,et al.  Study of diagnostic accord between general practitioners and an ophthalmologist. , 1992, BMJ.

[6]  A. Wilson,et al.  Management of ophthalmic disease in general practice. , 1993, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[7]  A Arditi,et al.  On the statistical reliability of letter-chart visual acuity measurements. , 1993, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[8]  Measuring visual acuity in general practice , 1995 .

[9]  Many referral letters omit visual acuity measurement , 1995, BMJ.

[10]  J T Holladay,et al.  Proper method for calculating average visual acuity. , 1997, Journal of refractive surgery.

[11]  J. Goldemberg.  Leapfrog energy technologies , 1998 .

[12]  J. Siderov,et al.  Variability of measurements of visual acuity in a large eye clinic. , 1999, Acta ophthalmologica Scandinavica.

[13]  L. Dandona,et al.  Awareness of eye diseases in an urban population in southern India. , 2001, Bulletin of the World Health Organization.

[14]  Wolzt,et al.  World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. , 2003, The Journal of the American College of Dentists.

[15]  D. Rosser,et al.  Development of a clinically feasible logMAR alternative to the Snellen chart: performance of the “compact reduced logMAR” visual acuity chart in amblyopic children , 2003, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[16]  Fred W Fitzke,et al.  How sensitive to clinical change are ETDRS logMAR visual acuity measurements? , 2003, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[17]  Improving on ETDRS acuities: design and results for a computerised thresholding device , 2003, Eye.

[18]  Christiane,et al.  World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. , 2004, Journal international de bioethique = International journal of bioethics.

[19]  Peter K Kaiser,et al.  Prospective evaluation of visual acuity assessment: a comparison of snellen versus ETDRS charts in clinical practice (An AOS Thesis). , 2009, Transactions of the American Ophthalmological Society.

[20]  How blackberry does it , 2010 .

[21]  P. Hewson,et al.  Comparison of the ETDRS logMAR, ‘compact reduced logMar’ and Snellen charts in routine clinical practice , 2010, Eye.

[22]  D. Pascolini,et al.  Global estimates of visual impairment: 2010 , 2011, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[23]  Wanjiku Mathenge,et al.  The Nakuru posterior segment eye disease study: methods and prevalence of blindness and visual impairment in Nakuru, Kenya. , 2012, Ophthalmology.

[24]  A. Bastawrous,et al.  iPhones for eye surgeons , 2012, Eye.

[25]  A. Bastawrous,et al.  Smartphone fundoscopy. , 2012, Ophthalmology.

[26]  J. Keenan,et al.  Application of smartphone cameras for detecting clinically active trachoma , 2012, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[27]  Helen Lippman,et al.  How apps are changing family medicine. , 2013, The Journal of family practice.

[28]  A. Bastawrous,et al.  Mobile health use in low- and high-income countries: an overview of the peer-reviewed literature , 2013, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[29]  Garrett Mehl,et al.  mHealth innovations as health system strengthening tools: 12 common applications and a visual framework , 2013, Global Health: Science and Practice.

[30]  Mark Spigt,et al.  Meeting Community Health Worker Needs for Maternal Health Care Service Delivery Using Appropriate Mobile Technologies in Ethiopia , 2013, PloS one.

[31]  B Thompson,et al.  An assessment of the iPad as a testing platform for distance visual acuity in adults , 2013, BMJ Open.

[32]  Tunde Peto,et al.  The Nakuru eye disease cohort study: methodology & rationale , 2014, BMC Ophthalmology.

[33]  Steven C Dakin,et al.  Effect of scoring and termination rules on test-retest variability of a novel high-pass letter acuity chart. , 2014, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[34]  Building a Foundation for Digital Inclusion: A Coordinated Local Content Ecosystem , 2014, Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization.

[35]  K. Barnard,et al.  The Role of Mobile Applications in Improving Alcohol Health Literacy in Young Adults With Type 1 Diabetes , 2015, Journal of diabetes science and technology.

[36]  Chandrasan Perera,et al.  The Eye Phone Study: reliability and accuracy of assessing Snellen visual acuity using smartphone technology , 2015, Eye.

[37]  B. Godley,et al.  Effectiveness of a smartphone application for testing near visual acuity , 2015, Eye.