Abstract
Background Restrictions due to the recent COVID-19 pandemic catalysed the deployment of telehealth solutions. A novel web‐based visual acuity test, validated in a healthy population, may be of great value in the follow‐up of uveitis patients.
Objective To determine the measurement accuracy of the unsupervised remote Easee web‐based visual acuity test in uveitis patients, when compared to a conventional in‐hospital assessment.
Methods Cross‐sectional diagnostic accuracy study. Between April 2020 and September 2020, consecutive adult uveitis patients were invited for the web‐based visual acuity test (index test) within two weeks prior to their conventional in‐hospital assessment (reference test).
Results A total of 269 patients were invited by mail, of whom 84 visited the website (31%). Ultimately 98 eyes met the criteria for statistical analysis. The mean difference between the two tests was low and non‐significant: 0.02 logMAR (SD 0.12, P = 0.085). The 95% limits of agreement ranged from ‐0.21 to 0.26 logMAR. No relevant differences were identified in clinical characteristics between subgroups with a good performance (i.e. difference between the tests 0.15 logMAR) or underperformance (i.e. difference >0.15 logMAR) on the web‐based test.
Conclusion The web‐based visual acuity test is a promising tool to remotely assess visual acuity in the majority of uveitis patients, especially relevant when access to ophthalmic care is limited. No association between patient‐ or uveitis‐related variables and (under)performance of the test were identified. These outcomes underline the potential of remote vision testing in other common ophthalmic conditions. A proper implementation of this web‐based tool in health care could be of great value for revolutionizing teleconsultations.
Competing Interest Statement
RW is an employee of the UMC Utrecht & consultant and shareholder of Easee BV.
Funding Statement
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
METC Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data are not publicly available, but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
