Skip to content

Assessing Agreement Between Acuvera Capture and Paper-Based Methods for BCVA Data Recording in Ophthalmic Trials

An Observational Comparative Study Assessing Agreement Between Acuvera Capture and Paper-Based Methods for Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) Data Recording in Ophthalmic Clinical Trials

Status
Recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT07613580
Acronym
VALiCAPTURE
Enrollment
90
Registered
2026-05-29
Start date
2026-01-12
Completion date
2026-06-30
Last updated
2026-05-29

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Ophthalmopathy

Keywords

BCVA, ETDRS Protocol, Electronic Capture

Brief summary

Study Purpose: To evaluate the level of agreement between the Acuvera Capture application and traditional paper-based methods for recording Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) in ophthalmic clinical trials. The study aims to determine whether the electronic capture system provides equivalent or improved accuracy, consistency, and error reduction compared with paper-based recording, thereby supporting its potential adoption as a reliable method for BCVA data collection in clinical research.

Detailed description

Background and Rationale: Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) is the most widely accepted and clinically meaningful functional endpoint in ophthalmic clinical trials. It is routinely used to assess treatment efficacy, disease progression, and visual function across a broad spectrum of ocular diseases, including age-related macular degeneration (AMD), diabetic retinopathy, and inherited retinal diseases. Regulatory authorities such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) recognize BCVA as a primary endpoint in pivotal trials, and therapeutic approvals often hinge on statistically and clinically significant changes in BCVA outcomes (1-3). Despite this critical role, BCVA data collection in clinical trials remains vulnerable when recorded on traditional paper forms. Common challenges include: Calculation errors: Manual determination of the total number of letters correctly identified during BCVA testing is prone to human error, particularly when partial lines are read or when examiners must manually apply line-by-line scoring rules. Miscounting or incorrect summation of letter scores can result in inaccurate BCVA values and distort subsequent data analyses. These errors are inherent to paper-based recording processes and highlight the need for standardized, automated systems capable of performing real-time calculations to ensure data accuracy and consistency across study sites (1,2,3). Transcription Errors: Manual transfer of BCVA scores from testing charts to case report forms can result in numerical misentries and calculation mistakes (4). Omission and Misrecording: Missed data points, illegible handwriting, or recording the wrong line/letter score can compromise data integrity (5). Protocol Deviations: Variations in testing procedures (e.g., incorrect testing distance, inappropriate prompting, or examiner bias) are not always detected in real time, introducing variability and bias (6). Delayed Error Detection: Errors are often identified only retrospectively, during central reading or data monitoring, causing delays in data cleaning, increased trial costs, and, in some cases, regulatory queries (7). Digital capture solutions such as Acuvera Capture address these limitations by embedding real-time quality control at the point of care. The application incorporates automated error detection, warning systems for protocol deviations, and standardized workflow guidance, ensuring higher data fidelity. By minimizing calculation, transcription and protocol errors, Acuvera Capture has the potential to strengthen data reliability, streamline trial conduct, and increase regulatory confidence in BCVA endpoints. Given that BCVA is the most critical functional endpoint in ophthalmic clinical trials, even small improvements in accuracy and reproducibility can substantially impact study outcomes, regulatory acceptability, and sponsor credibility. This study will directly compare Acuvera Capture against paper-based recording to validate data agreement and assess error rates, efficiency, and usability, thereby generating essential evidence to support digital transformation of BCVA data collection.

Interventions

None listed

Sponsors

OptymEdge, LLC
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Observational model
OTHER
Time perspective
PROSPECTIVE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

90 adult participants (≈180 eyes) with the following BCVA levels, will be included: * 30 participants (33%) in the normal/near-normal BCVA range (≤0.3 logMAR ≥70 letters); ≈20/40 or better); * 30 participants (33%) with mid-range BCVA (0.4-0.9 logMAR (36-69 letters); 20/50 to 20/200) * 30 participants (33%) with low vision BCVA (≥ 1.0 logMAR (≤35 letters); worse than 20/200) including off-chart acuities using protocol low-vision procedures). Inclusion Criteria: * Adults ≥18 years old * Able and willing to provide written informed consent * Capable of performing BCVA testing procedures according to study requirements * All BCVA ranges are eligible, including off-chart acuities (e.g., count fingers, hand motion, light perception) irrespective of the presence or absence of ocular disease.

Exclusion criteria

* Any condition preventing reliable completion of BCVA testing (e.g., severe cognitive impairment, language barriers) * Inability or unwillingness to comply with study requirements * Non-ophthalmic condition that precludes safe or reliable testing (e.g., immediate post-operative systemic status preventing cooperation). * Any circumstance that, in the investigator's opinion, makes the eye/participant unsuitable for accurate BCVA testing or for completing both data-capture methods during the same visit. Number of Sites: 2 ophthalmic clinical research centers Portugal) Number of Countries: Portugal Number of Visits: One study visit per participant Duration: 2 months Participants will undergo BCVA testing at a single visit using both paper-based recording and electronic capture with Acuvera Capture. Testing order will be randomized to minimize bias. Paper data will be inserted by the examiners or study coordinator into the study eCRF. Electronic capture data will be exported directly from the app.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Level of agreement in BCVA data recording between Acuvera Capture and paper-based methodsDifference of BCVA score results between paper and Acuvera Capture, in the same single visit - Baseline. (Same visit; assessments performed sequentially within minutes).Level of agreement in BCVA data recording between Acuvera Capture and paper-based methods, expressed using the statistical measurement of concordance, intraclass correlation coefficient \[ICC\]

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Data discrepancies and errorsBaseline (Same visit; assessments performed sequentially within minutes).Frequency and types of discrepancies between paper and electronic capture (e.g., calculation or transcription errors, missing data, protocol deviations). Error rates stratified by category (e.g., digit transposition, incomplete fields, illegible entries).
Efficiency metricsBaseline (Same visit; assessments performed sequentially within minutes).Time to complete BCVA data entry (per assessment and per session). Time to query resolution (if applicable). Overall workflow efficiency (average time saved per visit).
User feedbackBaseline (Same visit; assessments performed sequentially within minutes).A survey (Acuvera Capture Experience Survey) is going to be sent to the examiners, that will answer 7 questions about the experience of using Acuvera Capture. The Survey uses a scale of 1-5 (one being the worst and 5 being the best). Usability ratings from certified examiners (measured through structured questionnaires or Likert scales) Questions 1 to 3 of the Acuvera Capture Survey. Qualitative feedback on workflow integration, ease of use, and error prevention features. Question 3 and 4 of the Acuvera Capture Survey. Examiner preference between electronic vs. paper methods. - Questions 5 to 7 of the Acuvera Capture Survey.

Countries

Portugal

Contacts

CONTACTTânia Mesquita, BSc
emc.trials@oftalmologia.co.pt+351 239484348
CONTACTAna Claudia Rocha, BSc
abr@ess.ipp.pt
STUDY_DIRECTORAna Rita Santos, PhD

OptymEdge, LLC

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: May 30, 2026