HOTV Vision Test Compared With Tumbling E for Pediatric Vision Screening

Importance: Accurate assessment of uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) is fundamental to pediatric vision screening. Although the HOTV letter-matching test is recommended for pediatric vision screening, the tumbling E test remains widely used globally despite its higher cognitive demands for young children. Evidence directly comparing UCVA outcomes between the 2 tests across pediatric age groups is limited. Objective: To compare UCVA outcomes from HOTV and tumbling E vision tests and evaluate their suitability for pediatric vision screening. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional observational study, each participant underwent UCVA testing with both HOTV and tumbling E logMAR charts in a randomized sequence, with a 30-minute rest period between tests to minimize fatigue. The study was conducted in Shanghai as part of a national multicenter cohort study in China. Participants included 995 children aged 3 to 15 years who completed both vision tests, cycloplegic refraction, and comprehensive ophthalmic examinations. These data were analyzed from January 2025 to June 2026. Exposure: UCVA assessments using HOTV and tumbling E logMAR tests. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was mean UCVA (logMAR). Secondary outcomes included referral rates for reduced UCVA, screening performance for amblyopia and refractive errors, testability, and time required for vision test. Results: Overall, mean (SD) UCVA was 0.15 (0.22) (20/25) with HOTV and 0.20 (0.20) (20/32) with tumbling E (95% CI, -0.07 to -0.02; P < .001). The difference between the 2 tests decreased with age, initially 1 logMAR line in children aged 3 to younger than 4 years, more than 3 letters in those younger than 8 years, and reducing to 1 or less letters by age 8 years or older. Among 183 preschool children, HOTV test showed a lower referral rate (n = 34 [18.6%]) than tumbling E (n = 57 [31.2%]) (mean difference, -12.6%; 95% CI, -19.2% to -5.9%; P < .001), along with a higher true positive rate (0.68 vs 0.44; P < .001) and better specificity (0.93 vs 0.79; P < .001), with similar measures in older children. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings support the use of the HOTV test for children younger than 8 years. Its use could reduce unnecessary referrals, especially in the context of growing global emphasis on pediatric vision screening and early detection of myopia. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05770661.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
JAMA Ophthalmology
Published
2026-08-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2026.3425
Primary Topic
Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

HOTV Vision Test Compared With Tumbling E for Pediatric Vision Screening

Yuhe Liu, IAN G. MORGAN, Haotian Wu, Haidong Zou et al.
JAMA Ophthalmology
Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
article

HOTV Vision Test Compared With Tumbling E for Pediatric Vision Screening

Yuhe Liu, IAN G. MORGAN, Haotian Wu, Haidong Zou, Zhenglin Liu, Yanjiao Wang, Xiangui He, Jun Chen, Xun Xu, Zihan Ni, Kathryn A. Rose
article en

Abstract

Importance: Accurate assessment of uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) is fundamental to pediatric vision screening. Although the HOTV letter-matching test is recommended for pediatric vision screening, the tumbling E test remains widely used globally despite its higher cognitive demands for young children. Evidence directly comparing UCVA outcomes between the 2 tests across pediatric age groups is limited. Objective: To compare UCVA outcomes from HOTV and tumbling E vision tests and evaluate their suitability for pediatric vision screening. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional observational study, each participant underwent UCVA testing with both HOTV and tumbling E logMAR charts in a randomized sequence, with a 30-minute rest period between tests to minimize fatigue. The study was conducted in Shanghai as part of a national multicenter cohort study in China. Participants included 995 children aged 3 to 15 years who completed both vision tests, cycloplegic refraction, and comprehensive ophthalmic examinations. These data were analyzed from January 2025 to June 2026. Exposure: UCVA assessments using HOTV and tumbling E logMAR tests. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was mean UCVA (logMAR). Secondary outcomes included referral rates for reduced UCVA, screening performance for amblyopia and refractive errors, testability, and time required for vision test. Results: Overall, mean (SD) UCVA was 0.15 (0.22) (20/25) with HOTV and 0.20 (0.20) (20/32) with tumbling E (95% CI, -0.07 to -0.02; P < .001). The difference between the 2 tests decreased with age, initially 1 logMAR line in children aged 3 to younger than 4 years, more than 3 letters in those younger than 8 years, and reducing to 1 or less letters by age 8 years or older. Among 183 preschool children, HOTV test showed a lower referral rate (n = 34 [18.6%]) than tumbling E (n = 57 [31.2%]) (mean difference, -12.6%; 95% CI, -19.2% to -5.9%; P < .001), along with a higher true positive rate (0.68 vs 0.44; P < .001) and better specificity (0.93 vs 0.79; P < .001), with similar measures in older children. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings support the use of the HOTV test for children younger than 8 years. Its use could reduce unnecessary referrals, especially in the context of growing global emphasis on pediatric vision screening and early detection of myopia. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05770661.

JAMA Ophthalmology
University of Technology Sydney (AU), Australian National University (AU), Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN), Shanghai Eye Disease Prevention & Treatment Center (CN), Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (CN), Shanghai First People's Hospital (CN)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.