Peek Acuity App Download

If you are concerned about your eyesight, consult an eye health professional. We are unable to recommend specific eye health practitioners but suggest you contact your local health worker, family physician or an optometrist if you are unsure. Peek Acuity simply checks visual acuity, and we are unable to provide users with any medical advice based on test results.

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.

DOWNLOAD 🔥 https://ssurll.com/2y2EZm 🔥

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.

Results: We obtained 48% sensitivity, 83% specificity, 43% positive predictive value, and 86% negative predictive value for Peek Acuity's ability to refer compared to evaluation by a pediatric ophthalmologist, failing to achieve a desired sensitivity for implementation. Peek Acuity trended to overestimate the subject's visual acuity, providing a higher visual acuity that would not indicate referral for a comprehensive eye examination. However, its high specificity accurately predicted a significant number of children who did not need further evaluation. When comparing the three screening methods, no single screening modality outperformed the others. Peek Acuity represented a technology that was economically feasible compared to other screening modalities in low income settings, due to the prevalence of cell phone use.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the visual acuity (VA) by smartphone-based applications - EyeChart and the Peek Acuity to the standard Snellen chart to explore the possibility of using them as an alternative in tele-ophthalmology in the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Smartphone-based apps were easy to download and can be used for checking patient's distance and near visual acuity. An effect of age and refractive error should be considered when interpreting the results. Further studies with real-time patients are required to identify potential benefits and challenges to solve.

Objectives: To evaluate a smartphone-based application's (Peek Acuity) ability to assess visual acuity and screen for ocular conditions in children, we compared visual acuity assessment between Peek Acuity and the pediatric ophthalmology examination and evaluated Peek Acuity's ability to identify children with referable ocular conditions.

Study design: We prospectively recruited 111 children age 3-17 years, presenting to a pediatric ophthalmology clinic, who could follow instructions. Monocular visual acuity assessments by Peek Acuity and standard clinical methods were performed in randomized order. We compared visual acuity assessments between methods using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and evaluated Peek Acuity's ability to identify children with referable ocular conditions.

Conclusions: Overall, Peek Acuity visual acuity assessment correlated well with visual acuity assessed by standard clinical methods, though preschool-age children appeared more susceptible to examination fatigue. Peek Acuity performed adequately as a screening tool and had the greatest sensitivity among those with decreased vision and preschool-age children.

Results from a recent study published in JAMA Ophthalmology, have shown that the Peek (Portable Eye Examination Kit) Acuity app is just as accurate as ETDRS and Snellen chart for testing visual acuity. This makes the app one of the few mobile health applications to be proven and validated in a clinical trial.

Background: Limiting close physical contact is key to helping reduce the spread of the coronavirus by using the portable eye examination kit (Peek Acuity), which has been recognized as a reliable and valid tool to measure visual acuity. This study is aimed to compare the effectiveness of the Peek Acuity and ETDRS (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study) chart as the gold standard for screening in school-age students.

Results: There were 231 students with details aged 6-9 years, as many as 150 students and aged 10-12 years, as many as 81 students. On examination of visual acuity using peek acuity and ETDRS chart, it indicated that the number of subjects with refractive errors was more than normal eyes. Peek acuity has been shown to have low sensitivity and high specificity. Higher specificity was found in children aged 10-12 years compared to 6-9 years.

"In this study we aimed to develop and validate a smartphone-based visual acuity test for eyesight which would work in challenging circumstances, such as rural Africa, but also provide reliable enough results to use in routine clinical practice in well-established healthcare systems.

Remote self-administered visual acuity (VA) tests have the potential to allow patients and non-specialists to assess vision without eye health professional input. Validation in pragmatic trials is necessary to demonstrate the accuracy and reliability of tests in relevant settings to justify deployment. Here, published pragmatic trials of these tests were synthesised to summarise the effectiveness of available options and appraise the quality of their supporting evidence.

A systematic review was undertaken in accordance with a preregistered protocol (CRD42022385045). The Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE, and Scopus were searched. Screening was conducted according to the following criteria: (1) English language; (2) primary research article; (3) visual acuity test conducted out of eye clinic; (4) no clinical administration of remote test; (5) accuracy or reliability of remote test analysed. There were no restrictions on trial participants. Quality assessment was conducted with QUADAS-2.

Citation: Thirunavukarasu AJ, Hassan R, Limonard A, Savant SV (2023) Accuracy and reliability of self-administered visual acuity tests: Systematic review of pragmatic trials. PLoS ONE 18(6): e0281847.

Here, a systematic review was undertaken to identify pragmatic trials of remote self-administered VA tests; appraise the quality of their validation data; and compare these tests to conventional visual acuity testing. Specifically, the accuracy and reliability of VA self-tests were gauged to help establish the clinical utility of available platforms. All trials were pragmatic in that remote tests were administered without real-time clinical input, away from idealised but artificial conditions. This evidence synthesis serves as a point of reference for clinicians, patients, and policy makers interested in identifying appropriate platforms to facilitate visual acuity assessment without requiring eye health service involvement.

In this app, we have developed a new, easy-to-use tool for measuring visual acuity. It is not a test that requires any equipment or expert skills. It is designed to help eye care professionals and ophthalmologists measure and identify patients with vision problems.

Given the pandemic, however, ophthalmologists and optometrists have become interested in finding a medically useful way to effectively measure visual acuity at home. As a result, studies of the accuracy of different apps and other remote testing options have recently begun to appear in the literature.

An accurate, easy-to-use home visual acuity test would clearly be useful, not only during the current pandemic but in the future as remote medical care becomes more common. With that in mind, here are profiles of three current options for home visual acuity testing that have some clinical trial data supporting their validity as a medical tool.

Among the outpatients testing themselves at home, the HAT results were one line worse, on average, than the previous in-clinic measurement. Among the control subjects, the measurements were, on average, between one and two lines worse than testing done with a standard clinic chart. The data showed that the test had high repeatability; between two consecutive tests, the mean difference in measured visual acuity was 0 letters.

A clinical study was conducted by the company in conjunction with the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, and the Vision Institute and Quinze-Vingts National Eye Hospital, both located in Paris.11 The study compared the test results to the gold standard tests for each variable tested (visual acuity, contrast sensitivity and Amsler grid). The data showed statistically significant agreement with gold-standard measurements of visual acuity in the majority of the test subjects. ff782bc1db