Marlon M Maducdoc1, Asghar Haider2, Angèle Nalbandian3, Julie H Youm1, Payam V Morgan4, Robert W Crow5. 1. Irvine School of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, CA, 92697, USA. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Louisiana State University-Ochsner Eye Center, New Orleans, LA, 70112, USA. 3. School of Medicine Irvine, Discovery Eye Foundation, University of California, Irvine, CA, 92697, USA. 4. School of Medicine, Gavin Herbert Eye Institute, University of California, Irvine, 850 Health Sciences Road, Irvine, CA, 92697, USA. 5. School of Medicine, Gavin Herbert Eye Institute, University of California, Irvine, 850 Health Sciences Road, Irvine, CA, 92697, USA. rcrow@uci.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the increasing prevalence of electronic readers (e-readers) for vocational and professional uses, it is important to discover if there are visual consequences in the use of these products. There are no studies in the literature quantifying the incidence or severity of eyestrain, nor are there clinical characteristics that may predispose to these symptoms with e-reader use. PURPOSE: The primary objective of this pilot study was to assess the degree of eyestrain associated with e-reader use compared to traditional paper format. The secondary outcomes of this study were to assess the rate of eyestrain associated with e-reader use and identify any clinical characteristics that may be associated with the development of eyestrain. METHODS:Forty-four students were randomly assigned to study (e-reader iPAD) and control (print) groups. Participant posture, luminosity of the room, and reading distance from reading device were measured during a 1-h session for both groups. At the end of the session, questionnaires were administered to determine symptoms. RESULTS: Significantly higher rates of eyestrain (p = 0.008) and irritation (p = 0.011) were found among the iPAD study group as compared to the print 'control' group. The study group was also 4.9 times more likely to report severe eyestrain (95 % CI [1.4, 16.9]). No clinical characteristics predisposing to eyestrain could be identified. CONCLUSIONS: These findings conclude that reading on e-readers may induce increased levels of irritation and eyestrain. Predisposing factors, etiology, and potential remedial interventions remain to be determined.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: With the increasing prevalence of electronic readers (e-readers) for vocational and professional uses, it is important to discover if there are visual consequences in the use of these products. There are no studies in the literature quantifying the incidence or severity of eyestrain, nor are there clinical characteristics that may predispose to these symptoms with e-reader use. PURPOSE: The primary objective of this pilot study was to assess the degree of eyestrain associated with e-reader use compared to traditional paper format. The secondary outcomes of this study were to assess the rate of eyestrain associated with e-reader use and identify any clinical characteristics that may be associated with the development of eyestrain. METHODS: Forty-four students were randomly assigned to study (e-reader iPAD) and control (print) groups. Participant posture, luminosity of the room, and reading distance from reading device were measured during a 1-h session for both groups. At the end of the session, questionnaires were administered to determine symptoms. RESULTS: Significantly higher rates of eyestrain (p = 0.008) and irritation (p = 0.011) were found among the iPAD study group as compared to the print 'control' group. The study group was also 4.9 times more likely to report severe eyestrain (95 % CI [1.4, 16.9]). No clinical characteristics predisposing to eyestrain could be identified. CONCLUSIONS: These findings conclude that reading on e-readers may induce increased levels of irritation and eyestrain. Predisposing factors, etiology, and potential remedial interventions remain to be determined.
Authors: Hanne-Mari Schiøtz Thorud; Magne Helland; Arne Aarås; Tor Martin Kvikstad; Lars Göran Lindberg; Gunnar Horgen Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 1.973
Authors: Christina Chu; Mark Rosenfield; Joan K Portello; Jaclyn A Benzoni; Juanita D Collier Journal: Ophthalmic Physiol Opt Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: María Carmen Sánchez-González; Verónica Pérez-Cabezas; Estanislao Gutiérrez-Sánchez; Carmen Ruiz-Molinero; Manuel Rebollo-Salas; José Jesús Jiménez-Rejano Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-01-15 Impact factor: 3.240