K Gill1, A Mao, A M Powell, T Sheidow. 1. Department of Ophthalmology,University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. kulbir.gill@gmail.com
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare patient satisfaction, reading accuracy, and reading speed between digital e-readers (Sony eReader, Apple iPad) and standard paper/print media for patients with stable wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD). METHODS: Patients recruited for the study were patients with stable wet AMD, in one or both eyes, who would benefit from a low-vision aid. The selected text sizes by patients reflected the spectrum of low vision in regard to their macular disease. Stability of macular degeneration was assessed on a clinical examination with stable visual acuity. Patients recruited for the study were assessed for reading speeds on both digital readers and standard paper text. Standardized and validated texts for reading speeds were used. Font sizes in the study reflected a spectrum from newsprint to large print books. Patients started with the smallest print size they could read on the standardized paper text. They then used digital readers to read the same size standardized text. Reading speed was calculated as words per minute by the formula (correctly read words/reading time (s) ·60). The visual analog scale was completed by patients after reading each passage. These included their assessment on 'ease of use' and 'clarity of print' for each device and the print paper. RESULTS: A total of 27 patients were used in the study. Patients consistently read faster (P<0.0003) on the Apple iPad with larger text sizes (size 24 or greater) when compared with paper, and also on the paper compared with the Sony eReader (P<0.03) in all text group sizes. Patients chose the iPad to have the best clarity and the print paper as the easiest to use. CONCLUSIONS: This study has demonstrated that digital devices may have a use in visual rehabilitation for low-vision patients. Devices that have larger display screens and offer high contrast ratios will benefit AMD patients who require larger texts to read.
PURPOSE: To compare patient satisfaction, reading accuracy, and reading speed between digital e-readers (Sony eReader, Apple iPad) and standard paper/print media for patients with stable wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD). METHODS:Patients recruited for the study were patients with stable wet AMD, in one or both eyes, who would benefit from a low-vision aid. The selected text sizes by patients reflected the spectrum of low vision in regard to their macular disease. Stability of macular degeneration was assessed on a clinical examination with stable visual acuity. Patients recruited for the study were assessed for reading speeds on both digital readers and standard paper text. Standardized and validated texts for reading speeds were used. Font sizes in the study reflected a spectrum from newsprint to large print books. Patients started with the smallest print size they could read on the standardized paper text. They then used digital readers to read the same size standardized text. Reading speed was calculated as words per minute by the formula (correctly read words/reading time (s) ·60). The visual analog scale was completed by patients after reading each passage. These included their assessment on 'ease of use' and 'clarity of print' for each device and the print paper. RESULTS: A total of 27 patients were used in the study. Patients consistently read faster (P<0.0003) on the Apple iPad with larger text sizes (size 24 or greater) when compared with paper, and also on the paper compared with the Sony eReader (P<0.03) in all text group sizes. Patients chose the iPad to have the best clarity and the print paper as the easiest to use. CONCLUSIONS: This study has demonstrated that digital devices may have a use in visual rehabilitation for low-visionpatients. Devices that have larger display screens and offer high contrast ratios will benefit AMDpatients who require larger texts to read.
Authors: Melissa M Brown; Gary C Brown; Sanjay Sharma; Joshua D Stein; Zachary Roth; Joseph Campanella; George R Beauchamp Journal: Curr Opin Ophthalmol Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 3.761
Authors: G A Hahn; D Penka; C Gehrlich; A Messias; M Weismann; L Hyvärinen; M Leinonen; M Feely; G Rubin; C Dauxerre; F Vital-Durand; S Featherston; K Dietz; S Trauzettel-Klosinski Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Neil M Bressler; Tom S Chang; Ivan J Suñer; Jennifer T Fine; Chantal M Dolan; James Ward; Tsontcho Ianchulev Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2010-03-02 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: David M Brown; Mark Michels; Peter K Kaiser; Jeffrey S Heier; Judy P Sy; Tsontcho Ianchulev Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 12.079