Search

Background/objectives: The use of mobile ophthalmology applications (MOA) is increasing, but many of these tools have not been validated. This study was performed to assess the accuracy of a popular MOA, Eye Handbook, in measuring five commonly-tested vision assessment parameters (distance visual acuity (DVA), near visual acuity (NVA), colour vision testing (CVT), contrast sensitivity (CS), and pupillary distance (PD)) was compared with traditional vision assessment methods (TVAM) [i.e. Snellen chart, Rosenbaum near card, Ishihara, Pelli Robson test, etc.] performed in the eye clinic setting., Subjects/methods: Prospective crossover clinical trial of 129 patients meeting inclusion criteria., Results: Participants averaged significantly better DVA (p = 0.0008), NVA (p < 0.0001), and CVT (p = 0.0105) in the MOA than the TVAM, but all three MOA assessments were predictive of the TVAM values. CS was significantly better with the MOA (p < 0.0001). Linear regression and Spearman correlation tests were applied to assess the effect of CS on NVA, which showed no clear relationship between the difference in NVA and the difference in CS. PD using the two methods was in agreement with no significant difference (p = 0.2889)., Conclusion: The studied MOA offers an effective means of measuring four common vision parameters: DVA, NVA, CVT, and PD. The MOA can potentially be used by eye care providers, health care providers, and patients, both as a screening tool with correction factor and to monitor ocular pathologies. Atypical MOA measurements should prompt testing in the clinic with formal TVAMs., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to The Royal College of Ophthalmologists.)