A comparison of patient reading performance and preference: optical devices, handheld CCTV (Innoventions Magni-Cam), or stand-mounted CCTV (Optelec Clearview or TSI Genie).

BACKGROUND: Clinicians frequently prescribe reading devices for low vision patients having a central field loss. This study seeks to provide comparative information the clinician can use to assist patients in selecting the most cost-effective device(s) for reading.
METHOD: In this study we compared optical devices with two types of closed-circuit televisions (CCTVs) that differed in two important characteristics: price, and whether the camera was stand-mounted with an X-Y table or whether the camera was handheld. A "within-subjects" design was used with 22 subjects. The primary comparisons between devices were subject reading speed, duration, and preference.
RESULTS: Subject reading speed and duration were significantly greater with the CCTV systems than with optical devices; however, no significant performance differences were found between the two types of CCTVs. Patients did express a clear preference for one versus the other type of CCTV, with an overall preference for the stand-mounted system. When asked to consider the price differential between types of CCTVs, patient preferences were about equally divided.
CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians can expect significantly better initial reading performance for patients with central visual-field losses when reading with CCTVs versus optical devices. Handheld CCTVs, when compared with stand-mounted systems, are less expensive, provide equal performance, and have slightly lower subject preference ratings. The current study provides clinicians with objective performance data and subjective preference data that can be used to help patients with central visual-field losses select the most cost-effective reading device.