Kevin J Mena-Guevara, Dolores de Fez, Ainhoa Molina-Martín, David P Piñero
{"title":"Binocular vision measurements with a new online digital platform: comparison with conventional clinical measures.","authors":"Kevin J Mena-Guevara, Dolores de Fez, Ainhoa Molina-Martín, David P Piñero","doi":"10.1080/08164622.2023.2277880","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>New digital systems are being developed for evaluating different aspects of the visual function, such as binocularity, and it is important to know their real performance in clinical practice in order to use them appropriately.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>The aim was to compare binocular vision measures obtained with an online digital platform with conventional measures using prisms and printed tests.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Prospective study enrolling 49 healthy patients (mean age: 35.5 ± 13.6 years). A complete visual examination was performed including measurement of near phoria (cover test), negative fusional vergence (NFV) and positive fusional vergence (PFV) ranges (prism bar), and stereopsis (24 patients Randot Stereo Test and 25 patients TNO Random Dot Test 19th edition). These same parameters were also measured with the Bynocs system (Kanohi Eye Pvt Ltd). Bland - Altman plots were used to analyse the agreement between methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Digital measurement of near phoria was significantly lower than that obtained with the cover test, with a median difference (MD) of 4.71 (-0.07-20.07) prism dioptres (pd) (<i>p</i> < 0.001). No significant differences were found between Bynocs and prism bar methods in NFV break (MD 2.00, range -21-26 pd, <i>p</i> = 0.584) and recovery points (MD 0.00, range -16-24 pd, <i>p</i> = .571). Near PFV were significantly lower with Bynocs (break: MD -9.00, range -38-12 pd; recovery: MD -14.00, range -43-20 pd; <i>p</i> < 0.001). Bynocs stereoacuity threshold was significantly lower than that obtained with TNO (<i>p</i> = 0.004), but significantly higher compared to Randot (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Large and clinically relevant confidence intervals for the comparison between digital and conventional measures were detected in Passing-Bablok analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Digital measures of near phoria, NFV, PFV, and stereopsis with the Bynocs platform cannot be used interchangeably with conventional measures. The normal ranges of normality for this new tool are defined.</p>","PeriodicalId":10214,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Optometry","volume":" ","pages":"716-722"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Experimental Optometry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08164622.2023.2277880","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Clinical relevance: New digital systems are being developed for evaluating different aspects of the visual function, such as binocularity, and it is important to know their real performance in clinical practice in order to use them appropriately.
Background: The aim was to compare binocular vision measures obtained with an online digital platform with conventional measures using prisms and printed tests.
Methods: Prospective study enrolling 49 healthy patients (mean age: 35.5 ± 13.6 years). A complete visual examination was performed including measurement of near phoria (cover test), negative fusional vergence (NFV) and positive fusional vergence (PFV) ranges (prism bar), and stereopsis (24 patients Randot Stereo Test and 25 patients TNO Random Dot Test 19th edition). These same parameters were also measured with the Bynocs system (Kanohi Eye Pvt Ltd). Bland - Altman plots were used to analyse the agreement between methods.
Results: Digital measurement of near phoria was significantly lower than that obtained with the cover test, with a median difference (MD) of 4.71 (-0.07-20.07) prism dioptres (pd) (p < 0.001). No significant differences were found between Bynocs and prism bar methods in NFV break (MD 2.00, range -21-26 pd, p = 0.584) and recovery points (MD 0.00, range -16-24 pd, p = .571). Near PFV were significantly lower with Bynocs (break: MD -9.00, range -38-12 pd; recovery: MD -14.00, range -43-20 pd; p < 0.001). Bynocs stereoacuity threshold was significantly lower than that obtained with TNO (p = 0.004), but significantly higher compared to Randot (p < 0.001). Large and clinically relevant confidence intervals for the comparison between digital and conventional measures were detected in Passing-Bablok analysis.
Conclusions: Digital measures of near phoria, NFV, PFV, and stereopsis with the Bynocs platform cannot be used interchangeably with conventional measures. The normal ranges of normality for this new tool are defined.
期刊介绍：
Clinical and Experimental Optometry is a peer reviewed journal listed by ISI and abstracted by PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Science Citation Index and Current Contents. It publishes original research papers and reviews in clinical optometry and vision science. Debate and discussion of controversial scientific and clinical issues is encouraged and letters to the Editor and short communications expressing points of view on matters within the Journal''s areas of interest are welcome. The Journal is published six times annually.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
