Validation and evaluation of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity with a new digital device: OPTOTAB®.

IF 2.4
Víctor Ponce-García, María-Carmen Silva-Viguera, Marta-C García-Romera, Yael Guerra-Sancho, Noelia Heredia-Ríos, María-José Bautista-Llamas
{"title":"Validation and evaluation of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity with a new digital device: OPTOTAB®.","authors":"Víctor Ponce-García, María-Carmen Silva-Viguera, Marta-C García-Romera, Yael Guerra-Sancho, Noelia Heredia-Ríos, María-José Bautista-Llamas","doi":"10.1111/opo.13536","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To validate a new digital device: Optotab®+ (SmarThings4Vision) for measuring visual acuity (VA) and contrast sensitivity (CS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A validation study was conducted involving 20 healthy subjects (aged: 18-29 years). Distance and near VA and CS were assessed using the Optotab®+ and compared with the ETDRS test and Sloan letters for distance VA, the ETDRS test and LEA numbers® near vision card for near VA and the Regan and CSV-1000 tests for CS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant differences were noted between the right eye (RE) and left eye (L for distance (p > 0.99) and near VA (p = 0.32) or test-retest measurements (p > 0.05) using the Optotab®+. Distance VA differed significantly from the ETDRS (mean differences: -0.07 and -0.07 logMAR for the RE and LE, respectively, p = 0.01). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) indicated moderate reliability (RE: 0.64, LE: 0.48), while the ANOVA showed no significant differences (p = 0.75 for RE and p = 0.58 for LE). For CS, no significant differences were found between the RE and LE, except at 12 cpd (p = 0.04). ICC was highest at 18 cpd (0.90). A significant test-retest difference was observed at 6 cpd for the RE (0.10 log units, p = 0.01). Comparisons showed significant differences at 6 cpd between Optotab®+ and the CSV-1000, and at 3, 12 and 18 cpd between Optotab®+ and the Regan test. ICC indicated low to high reliability across spatial frequencies, while the ANOVA did not show significant differences or low variability. No significant inter-examiner differences were identified in VA and CS (p > 0.05), confirming strong reproducibility.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study demonstrates that the Optotab®+ has moderate reliability for VA assessment and higher precision at higher spatial frequencies for CS, suggesting its clinical utility. Outcomes regarding reliability, repeatability and reproducibility support its validity as an effective tool for measuring visual parameters in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":520731,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.13536","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To validate a new digital device: Optotab®+ (SmarThings4Vision) for measuring visual acuity (VA) and contrast sensitivity (CS).

Methods: A validation study was conducted involving 20 healthy subjects (aged: 18-29 years). Distance and near VA and CS were assessed using the Optotab®+ and compared with the ETDRS test and Sloan letters for distance VA, the ETDRS test and LEA numbers® near vision card for near VA and the Regan and CSV-1000 tests for CS.

Results: No significant differences were noted between the right eye (RE) and left eye (L for distance (p > 0.99) and near VA (p = 0.32) or test-retest measurements (p > 0.05) using the Optotab®+. Distance VA differed significantly from the ETDRS (mean differences: -0.07 and -0.07 logMAR for the RE and LE, respectively, p = 0.01). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) indicated moderate reliability (RE: 0.64, LE: 0.48), while the ANOVA showed no significant differences (p = 0.75 for RE and p = 0.58 for LE). For CS, no significant differences were found between the RE and LE, except at 12 cpd (p = 0.04). ICC was highest at 18 cpd (0.90). A significant test-retest difference was observed at 6 cpd for the RE (0.10 log units, p = 0.01). Comparisons showed significant differences at 6 cpd between Optotab®+ and the CSV-1000, and at 3, 12 and 18 cpd between Optotab®+ and the Regan test. ICC indicated low to high reliability across spatial frequencies, while the ANOVA did not show significant differences or low variability. No significant inter-examiner differences were identified in VA and CS (p > 0.05), confirming strong reproducibility.

Conclusions: This study demonstrates that the Optotab®+ has moderate reliability for VA assessment and higher precision at higher spatial frequencies for CS, suggesting its clinical utility. Outcomes regarding reliability, repeatability and reproducibility support its validity as an effective tool for measuring visual parameters in clinical practice.

用一种新的数字设备:OPTOTAB®验证和评估视力和对比灵敏度。
目的:验证一种新的数字设备:Optotab®+ (SmarThings4Vision),用于测量视力(VA)和对比度灵敏度(CS)。方法:对20名年龄18-29岁的健康受试者进行验证性研究。使用Optotab®+评估VA和CS的距离和近距离,并与ETDRS测试和Sloan字母(VA的距离)、ETDRS测试和LEA数字®近视力卡(VA的距离)以及Regan和CSV-1000测试(CS的距离)进行比较。结果:使用Optotab®+,右眼(RE)和左眼(距离L (p > 0.99)和近VA (p = 0.32)或重测测量(p > 0.05)之间无显著差异。距离VA与ETDRS差异显著(RE和LE的平均差异分别为-0.07和-0.07 logMAR, p = 0.01)。类内相关系数(ICC)显示中等信度(RE: 0.64, LE: 0.48),而方差分析显示无显著差异(RE = 0.75, LE = 0.58)。对于CS, RE和LE之间无显著差异,除了12 cpd (p = 0.04)。ICC最高,为18 cpd(0.90)。在6 cpd时,RE的重测差异显著(0.10 log单位,p = 0.01)。比较显示,Optotab®+与CSV-1000在6 cpd时,以及Optotab®+与Regan试验在3、12和18 cpd时存在显著差异。ICC在空间频率上显示出低到高的可靠性,而ANOVA没有显示出显著差异或低变异性。VA和CS在检查者间无显著差异(p < 0.05),证实了较强的重复性。结论:本研究表明,Optotab®+在VA评估中具有中等可靠性,在CS的高空间频率下具有较高的精度,提示其临床应用价值。关于可靠性、可重复性和再现性的结果支持其作为临床实践中测量视觉参数的有效工具的有效性。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信