A systematic review of reading tests

Adequate near and intermediate visual capacity is important in performing everyday tasks, especially after the introduction of smartphones and computers in our professional and recreational activities. Primary objective of this study was to review all available reading tests both conventional and digital and explore their integrated characteristics. A systematic review of the recent literature regarding reading charts was performed based on the PubMed, Google Scholar, and Springer databases between February and March 2021. Data from 11 descriptive and 24 comparative studies were included in the present systematic review. Clinical settings are still dominated by conventional printed reading charts; however, the most prevalent of them (i.e., Jaeger type charts) are not validated. Reliable reading capacity assessment is done only by those that comply with the International Council of Ophthalmology (ICO) recommendations. Digital reading tests are gaining popularity both in clinical and research settings and are differentiated in standard computer-based applications that require installation either in a computer or a tablet (e.g., Advanced VISION Test and web-based ones e.g., Democritus Digital Acuity Reading Test requires no installation). It is evident that validated digital tests will prevail in future clinical or research settings and it is upon ophthalmologists to select the one most compatible with their examination routine

Development and Validation of the First Smart TV-Based Visual Acuity Test: A Prospective Study

(1) Background: While smartphones are among the primary devices used in telemedical applications, smart TV healthcare apps are not prevalent despite smart TVs’ penetrance in home settings. The present study’s objective was to develop and validate the first smart TV-based visual acuity (VA) test (Democritus Digital Visual Acuity Test (DDiVAT)) that allows a reliable VA self-assessment. (2) Methods: This is a prospective validation study. DDiVAT introduces several advanced features for reliable VA self-testing; among them: automatic calibration, voice recognition, voice guidance, automatic calculation of VA indexes, and a smart TV-based messaging system. Normal and low vision participants were included in the validation. DDiVAT VA results (VADDiVAT) were compared against the ones from: (a) the gold-standard conventional ETDRS (VAETDRS), and, (b) an independent ophthalmologist who monitored the self-examination testing (VARES). Comparisons were performed by noninferiority test (set at 2.5-letters) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). DDiVAT’s test-retest reliability was assessed within a 15-day time-window. (3) Results: A total of 300 participants (185 and 115 with normal and low vision, respectively) responded to ETDRS and DDiVAT. Mean difference in letters was −0.05 for VAETDRS–VARES, 0.62 for VARES–VADDiVAT, and 0.67 for VAETDRS–VADDiVAT, significantly lower than the 2.5 letter noninferiority margin. ICCs indicated an excellent level of agreement, collectively and for each group (0.922-0.996). All displayed letters in DDiVAT presented a similar difficulty. The overall accuracy of the voice recognition service was 96.01%. ICC for VADDiVAT test-retest was 0.957. (4) Conclusions: The proposed DDiVAT presented non-significant VA differences with the ETDRS, suggesting that it can be used for accurate VA self-assessment in telemedical settings, both for normal and low-vision patients