S Tofigh1, E Shortridge1, A Elkeeb1, B F Godley1. 1. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the discrepancy between the near visual acuity (VA) measurements using the EyeHandBook smartphone application and the conventional method of using the near vision card. METHODS: Using similar environmental/examinational conditions, near VA measurements were obtained and compared using the near vision card and the EyeHandBook app for IPhone 5 from 100 subjects. The obtained data were changed to LogMAR format and the relationship between the two techniques was analyzed by paired sample t-test and scatterplot. RESULTS: With a P-value of<0.0001, our results indicate that the EyeHandBook application running on IPhone 5 overestimates the near VA compared with the conventional near vision card by an average of 0.11 LogMAR unless the measurement done by the near vision card was 20/20. CONCLUSIONS: Owing to vast utilization of portable high-definition screens in VA measurements, eye-care providers have to be mindful of the potential disparity in VA measurement between different platforms, which in our study was likely secondary to the high contrast and brightness levels of the smartphone's high-definition screen when compared with the near vision card.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the discrepancy between the near visual acuity (VA) measurements using the EyeHandBook smartphone application and the conventional method of using the near vision card. METHODS: Using similar environmental/examinational conditions, near VA measurements were obtained and compared using the near vision card and the EyeHandBook app for IPhone 5 from 100 subjects. The obtained data were changed to LogMAR format and the relationship between the two techniques was analyzed by paired sample t-test and scatterplot. RESULTS: With a P-value of<0.0001, our results indicate that the EyeHandBook application running on IPhone 5 overestimates the near VA compared with the conventional near vision card by an average of 0.11 LogMAR unless the measurement done by the near vision card was 20/20. CONCLUSIONS: Owing to vast utilization of portable high-definition screens in VA measurements, eye-care providers have to be mindful of the potential disparity in VA measurement between different platforms, which in our study was likely secondary to the high contrast and brightness levels of the smartphone's high-definition screen when compared with the near vision card.
Authors: Jesse Richman; Luciano L Lorenzana; Dara Lankaranian; Jyoti Dugar; Jason Mayer; Sheryl S Wizov; George L Spaeth Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2010-12
Authors: Javad Heravian Shandiz; Akbar Derakhshan; Ameneh Daneshyar; Abbas Azimi; Hadi Ostadi Moghaddam; Abbas Ali Yekta; Seyed Hosein Hoseini Yazdi; Habibollah Esmaily Journal: J Ophthalmic Vis Res Date: 2011-01
Authors: Omer Trivizki; Michael R Karp; Anuj Chawla; Justin Yamanuha; Giovanni Gregori; Philip J Rosenfeld Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2020-07-02 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Stuart Keel; Jane Scheetz; Edith Holloway; Xiaotong Han; William Yan; Andreas Mueller; Mingguang He Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-03-23 Impact factor: 2.692