Varshini Varadaraj1, Lama Assi1, Prateek Gajwani1, Madison Wahl1, Jenina David1, Bonnielin K Swenor1, Joshua R Ehrlich2,3. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Johns Hopkins Wilmer Eye Institute, Baltimore, MD, USA. 2. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Center for Eye Policy and Innovation University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 3. Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Abstract
Purpose: Recent innovations in mobile technology for the measurement of vision present a valuable opportunity to measure visual function in non-clinical settings, such as in the home and in field-based surveys. This study evaluated agreement between a tablet-based measurement of distance and near acuity and contrast sensitivity as compared to gold-standard clinical tests. Methods: Participants aged ≥55 years recruited from a tertiary eye clinic underwent testing with three tablet-based and corresponding gold-standard clinical measures (ETDRS distance acuity, Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity, and MNRead near acuity). Correlation and agreement between tablet-based and clinical tests were assessed. Results: A total of 82 participants with a mean age of 69.1 (SD = 7.6) years, and majority female (67.1%) and white (64.6%), were enrolled in this study. The mean (SD) difference between the tests (gold-standard - tablet) was -0.04 (0.08) logMAR for distance acuity, -0.11 (0.13) log units for contrast sensitivity, and -0.09 (0.12) logMAR for near acuity. 95% limits of agreement for distance acuity (-0.21, 0.12 logMAR), near acuity (-0.34, 0.14 logMAR), and contrast sensitivity (-0.36, 0.14 logCS) were also determined. The correlation between tablet-based and gold-standard tests was strongest for distance acuity (r = 0.78), followed by contrast sensitivity (r = 0.75), and near acuity (r = 0.67). The agreement between the standard and tablet-based methods did not appear to be dependent on the level of vision.Conclusions: This study demonstrates the agreement of tablet-based and gold-standard tests of visual function in older adults. These findings have important implications for future population vision health surveillance and research.
Purpose: Recent innovations in mobile technology for the measurement of vision present a valuable opportunity to measure visual function in non-clinical settings, such as in the home and in field-based surveys. This study evaluated agreement between a tablet-based measurement of distance and near acuity and contrast sensitivity as compared to gold-standard clinical tests. Methods: Participants aged ≥55 years recruited from a tertiary eye clinic underwent testing with three tablet-based and corresponding gold-standard clinical measures (ETDRS distance acuity, Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity, and MNRead near acuity). Correlation and agreement between tablet-based and clinical tests were assessed. Results: A total of 82 participants with a mean age of 69.1 (SD = 7.6) years, and majority female (67.1%) and white (64.6%), were enrolled in this study. The mean (SD) difference between the tests (gold-standard - tablet) was -0.04 (0.08) logMAR for distance acuity, -0.11 (0.13) log units for contrast sensitivity, and -0.09 (0.12) logMAR for near acuity. 95% limits of agreement for distance acuity (-0.21, 0.12 logMAR), near acuity (-0.34, 0.14 logMAR), and contrast sensitivity (-0.36, 0.14 logCS) were also determined. The correlation between tablet-based and gold-standard tests was strongest for distance acuity (r = 0.78), followed by contrast sensitivity (r = 0.75), and near acuity (r = 0.67). The agreement between the standard and tablet-based methods did not appear to be dependent on the level of vision.Conclusions: This study demonstrates the agreement of tablet-based and gold-standard tests of visual function in older adults. These findings have important implications for future population vision health surveillance and research.
Authors: Timothy R Fricke; Nina Tahhan; Serge Resnikoff; Eric Papas; Anthea Burnett; Suit May Ho; Thomas Naduvilath; Kovin S Naidoo Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2018-05-09 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Ryan Eyn Kidd Man; Alfred Tau Liang Gan; Eva K Fenwick; Sahil Thakur; Preeti Gupta; Zhen Ling Teo; Ching-Yu Cheng; Tien Yin Wong; Ecosse L Lamoureux Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2020-02-08 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Andrew Bastawrous; Hillary K Rono; Iain A T Livingstone; Helen A Weiss; Stewart Jordan; Hannah Kuper; Matthew J Burton Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Aurélie Calabrèse; Long To; Yingchen He; Elizabeth Berkholtz; Paymon Rafian; Gordon E Legge Journal: J Vis Date: 2018-01-01 Impact factor: 2.240
Authors: Mengyao Hu; Vicki A Freedman; Joshua R Ehrlich; Nicholas S Reed; Catherine Billington; Judith D Kasper Journal: J Surv Stat Methodol Date: 2021-02-14