PURPOSE: The Aniseikonia Inspector 1.1 (AI) is a new software product to measure aniseikonia using red-green anaglyphs. The purpose of this study was to test whether the AI is a valid and reliable test. METHODS: There were two groups of sample subjects: one at risk of aniseikonia, with anisometropia greater than or equal to 1.00 D (n= 29), and a control group (n= 45). The validity was studied by comparing the measured aniseikonia with the aniseikonia simulated with size lenses. The reliability was estimated by the Bland-Altman statistical method. RESULTS: The results showed that the AI underestimated aniseikonia and that the underestimation was greater in the horizontal than in the vertical direction. The reliability was low, with biases that were clinically insignificant, but the 95% limits of agreement were around +/-2%. The behavior of the test was similar in both groups of subjects. CONCLUSIONS: The reliability of the AI is only moderate, and professionals are therefore warned to use the results of this test with caution.
PURPOSE: The Aniseikonia Inspector 1.1 (AI) is a new software product to measure aniseikonia using red-green anaglyphs. The purpose of this study was to test whether the AI is a valid and reliable test. METHODS: There were two groups of sample subjects: one at risk of aniseikonia, with anisometropia greater than or equal to 1.00 D (n= 29), and a control group (n= 45). The validity was studied by comparing the measured aniseikonia with the aniseikonia simulated with size lenses. The reliability was estimated by the Bland-Altman statistical method. RESULTS: The results showed that the AI underestimated aniseikonia and that the underestimation was greater in the horizontal than in the vertical direction. The reliability was low, with biases that were clinically insignificant, but the 95% limits of agreement were around +/-2%. The behavior of the test was similar in both groups of subjects. CONCLUSIONS: The reliability of the AI is only moderate, and professionals are therefore warned to use the results of this test with caution.
Authors: Jayshree South; Tina Gao; Melinda Calderwood; Jason Turuwhenua; Paul Roberts; Arier Lee; Andrew Collins; Joanna Black Journal: Trials Date: 2022-04-27 Impact factor: 2.728
Authors: David A Atchison; Thien Nguyen; Katrina L Schmid; Archayeeta Rakshit; Alex S Baldwin; Robert F Hess Journal: Ophthalmic Physiol Opt Date: 2022-03-06 Impact factor: 3.992