Evaluating the precision of an online visual acuity test tool.

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Mauro Gobira, Vinícius Freire, Glauco Sérgio Avelino de Aquino, Vanessa Dib, Matheus Gobira, Pedro Carlos Carricondo, Ariadne Dias, Marco Antonio Negreiros
{"title":"Evaluating the precision of an online visual acuity test tool.","authors":"Mauro Gobira, Vinícius Freire, Glauco Sérgio Avelino de Aquino, Vanessa Dib, Matheus Gobira, Pedro Carlos Carricondo, Ariadne Dias, Marco Antonio Negreiros","doi":"10.1177/1357633X241252454","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to assess the precision of a web-based tool in measuring visual acuity (VA) in ophthalmic patients, comparing it to the traditional in-clinic evaluation using a Snellen chart, considered the gold standard.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a prospective and in-clinic validation comparing the Eyecare Visual Acuity Test® to the standard Snellen chart, with patients undergoing both tests sequentially. Patients wore their standard spectacles as needed for both tests. Inclusion criteria involved individuals above 18 years with VA equal to or better than +1 logMar (20/200) in each eye. VA measurements were converted from Snellen to logMAR, and statistical analyses included Bland-Altman and descriptive statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study, encompassing 322 patients and 644 eyes, compared Eyecare Visual Acuity Test® to conventional methods, revealing a statistically insignificant mean difference (0.01 logMAR, <i>P</i> = 0.1517). Bland-Altman analysis showed a narrow 95% limit of agreement (0.22 to -0.23 logMAR), indicating concordance, supported by a significant Pearson correlation (r = 0.61, <i>P</i> < 0.001) between the two assessments.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Eyecare Visual Acuity Test® demonstrates accuracy and reliability, with the potential to facilitate home monitoring, triage, and remote consultation. In future research, it is important to validate the Eyecare Visual Acuity Test® accuracy across varied age cohorts, including pediatric and geriatric populations, as well as among individuals presenting with specific comorbidities like cataract, uveitis, keratoconus, age-related macular disease, and amblyopia.</p>","PeriodicalId":50024,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare","volume":" ","pages":"1357633X241252454"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X241252454","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the precision of a web-based tool in measuring visual acuity (VA) in ophthalmic patients, comparing it to the traditional in-clinic evaluation using a Snellen chart, considered the gold standard.

Methods: We conducted a prospective and in-clinic validation comparing the Eyecare Visual Acuity Test® to the standard Snellen chart, with patients undergoing both tests sequentially. Patients wore their standard spectacles as needed for both tests. Inclusion criteria involved individuals above 18 years with VA equal to or better than +1 logMar (20/200) in each eye. VA measurements were converted from Snellen to logMAR, and statistical analyses included Bland-Altman and descriptive statistics.

Results: The study, encompassing 322 patients and 644 eyes, compared Eyecare Visual Acuity Test® to conventional methods, revealing a statistically insignificant mean difference (0.01 logMAR, P = 0.1517). Bland-Altman analysis showed a narrow 95% limit of agreement (0.22 to -0.23 logMAR), indicating concordance, supported by a significant Pearson correlation (r = 0.61, P < 0.001) between the two assessments.

Conclusion: The Eyecare Visual Acuity Test® demonstrates accuracy and reliability, with the potential to facilitate home monitoring, triage, and remote consultation. In future research, it is important to validate the Eyecare Visual Acuity Test® accuracy across varied age cohorts, including pediatric and geriatric populations, as well as among individuals presenting with specific comorbidities like cataract, uveitis, keratoconus, age-related macular disease, and amblyopia.

评估在线视力测试工具的精确度。
研究目的本研究旨在评估一种基于网络的工具在测量眼科患者视力(VA)方面的精确性,并将其与使用斯奈伦视力表(被认为是黄金标准)进行的传统诊所评估进行比较:我们对 Eyecare Visual Acuity Test® 和标准斯奈伦视力表进行了前瞻性的临床验证,患者将依次接受这两项测试。患者根据需要佩戴标准眼镜进行这两项测试。纳入标准为 18 岁以上,每只眼睛的视力等于或优于 +1 logMar (20/200)。视力测量值从斯奈伦法转换为对数马尔法,统计分析包括布兰-阿尔特曼统计和描述性统计:该研究包括 322 名患者和 644 只眼睛,将 Eyecare Visual Acuity Test® 与传统方法进行了比较,发现两者的平均差异(0.01 logMAR,P = 0.1517)在统计学上并不显著。Bland-Altman 分析显示,95% 的一致性范围较窄(0.22 至 -0.23 logMAR),表明两者具有一致性,并有显著的皮尔逊相关性(r = 0.61,P 结论):Eyecare Visual Acuity Test® 证明了其准确性和可靠性,具有促进家庭监测、分流和远程会诊的潜力。在未来的研究中,验证 Eyecare 视力测试® 在不同年龄段的准确性非常重要,包括儿童和老年群体,以及患有白内障、葡萄膜炎、角膜炎、年龄相关性黄斑疾病和弱视等特殊合并症的人群。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.10
自引率
10.60%
发文量
174
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare provides excellent peer reviewed coverage of developments in telemedicine and e-health and is now widely recognised as the leading journal in its field. Contributions from around the world provide a unique perspective on how different countries and health systems are using new technology in health care. Sections within the journal include technology updates, editorials, original articles, research tutorials, educational material, review articles and reports from various telemedicine organisations. A subscription to this journal will help you to stay up-to-date in this fast moving and growing area of medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信