The Test-Retest Variability of the COMPlog System in Participants with Induced Non-Normal Visual Acuity.

Q3 Medicine
Mun Wei Kan, Anne Bjerre
{"title":"The Test-Retest Variability of the COMPlog System in Participants with Induced Non-Normal Visual Acuity.","authors":"Mun Wei Kan,&nbsp;Anne Bjerre","doi":"10.22599/bioj.127","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>The aim of this study was to determine and compare test-retest variability (TRV) of the computerised visual acuity (VA) COMPlog system on participants with normal vision and non-normal vision induced by bangerter foils (BFs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty adult volunteers with VA of 0.100 logMAR or better in each eye and no eye conditions were included. Monocular VA data using the COMPlog system under five conditions-with plain Plano glasses (visually normal condition) and four pairs of Plano glasses with BF strengths of 0.6, 0.3, 0.2 and 0.1 (induced non-normal vision conditions)-were collected on two separate visits. To reduce bias, the eye tested and order of the BFs assessed were randomised. Data comparison was analysed using 2-factor ANOVA and paired t-tests and Bland Altman analysis to assess TRV.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mean VA score from the two visits was -0.072 ± 0.1 logMAR for Plano, 0.106 ± 0.1 logMAR for BF 0.6, 0.428 ± 0.1 logMAR for BF 0.3, 0.662 ± 0.09 logMAR for BF 0.2 and 0.850 ± 0.08 logMAR for BF 0.1. As BF density increased, VA score significantly worsened (p < 0.0001). Overall mean VA score from the first and second visit was 0.410 ± 0.4 logMAR and 0.379 ± 0.4 logMAR, respectively. This improvement was significant (p < 0.009). The 95% limits of agreement of the VA scores between testing conditions had a range of ±0.120 to ±0.220 logMAR.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Increase in BF strength led to a worsened VA score. However, the COMPlog TRV under the visually normal and induced non-normal vision conditions were within a similar range (±0.120 to ±0.220 logMAR). VA significantly improved on the second visit, suggesting a possible learning effect, which could have a clinical impact.</p>","PeriodicalId":36083,"journal":{"name":"British and Irish Orthoptic Journal","volume":"15 1","pages":"47-52"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7510395/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British and Irish Orthoptic Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22599/bioj.127","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to determine and compare test-retest variability (TRV) of the computerised visual acuity (VA) COMPlog system on participants with normal vision and non-normal vision induced by bangerter foils (BFs).

Methods: Twenty adult volunteers with VA of 0.100 logMAR or better in each eye and no eye conditions were included. Monocular VA data using the COMPlog system under five conditions-with plain Plano glasses (visually normal condition) and four pairs of Plano glasses with BF strengths of 0.6, 0.3, 0.2 and 0.1 (induced non-normal vision conditions)-were collected on two separate visits. To reduce bias, the eye tested and order of the BFs assessed were randomised. Data comparison was analysed using 2-factor ANOVA and paired t-tests and Bland Altman analysis to assess TRV.

Results: Mean VA score from the two visits was -0.072 ± 0.1 logMAR for Plano, 0.106 ± 0.1 logMAR for BF 0.6, 0.428 ± 0.1 logMAR for BF 0.3, 0.662 ± 0.09 logMAR for BF 0.2 and 0.850 ± 0.08 logMAR for BF 0.1. As BF density increased, VA score significantly worsened (p < 0.0001). Overall mean VA score from the first and second visit was 0.410 ± 0.4 logMAR and 0.379 ± 0.4 logMAR, respectively. This improvement was significant (p < 0.009). The 95% limits of agreement of the VA scores between testing conditions had a range of ±0.120 to ±0.220 logMAR.

Conclusions: Increase in BF strength led to a worsened VA score. However, the COMPlog TRV under the visually normal and induced non-normal vision conditions were within a similar range (±0.120 to ±0.220 logMAR). VA significantly improved on the second visit, suggesting a possible learning effect, which could have a clinical impact.

Abstract Image

诱发性非正常视力受试者COMPlog系统的重测变异性。
目的:本研究的目的是确定和比较计算机视觉灵敏度(VA) COMPlog系统对正常视力和由银箔(BFs)引起的异常视力的测试和重测变异性(TRV)。方法:纳入20名成人志愿者,每只眼睛的VA为0.100 logMAR或更高,无眼部疾病。使用COMPlog系统在五种情况下-使用普通Plano眼镜(视力正常情况)和四副BF强度为0.6,0.3,0.2和0.1的Plano眼镜(诱导非正常视力条件)-在两次单独访问中收集单目VA数据。为了减少偏倚,测试的眼睛和评估的BFs顺序是随机的。数据比较采用双因素方差分析、配对t检验和Bland Altman分析评估TRV。结果:两次就诊的平均VA评分为:Plano组为-0.072±0.1 logMAR, BF 0.6组为0.106±0.1 logMAR, BF 0.3组为0.428±0.1 logMAR, BF 0.2组为0.662±0.09 logMAR, BF 0.1组为0.850±0.08 logMAR。随着BF密度的增加,VA评分显著恶化(p < 0.0001)。第一次和第二次就诊的总体平均VA评分分别为0.410±0.4 logMAR和0.379±0.4 logMAR。这种改善是显著的(p < 0.009)。测试条件之间VA评分一致性的95%限度范围为±0.120至±0.220 logMAR。结论:BF强度增加导致VA评分恶化。然而,在视觉正常和诱导的异常视觉条件下,COMPlog TRV在相似的范围内(±0.120 ~±0.220 logMAR)。VA在第二次访问时显着改善,表明可能存在学习效应,这可能会产生临床影响。
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
British and Irish Orthoptic Journal
British and Irish Orthoptic Journal Health Professions-Optometry
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
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