Accuracy of Mobile-Based Vision Chart in Clinical Practice during the COVID-19 pandemic.

IF 1.7 4区医学 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY

Ophthalmic epidemiology Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-04-28 DOI:10.1080/09286586.2023.2207202

Ahmed Abdelshafy Tabl, Mohamed Bendary, Marwa Abdelshafy Tabl

{"title":"Accuracy of Mobile-Based Vision Chart in Clinical Practice during the COVID-19 pandemic.","authors":"Ahmed Abdelshafy Tabl, Mohamed Bendary, Marwa Abdelshafy Tabl","doi":"10.1080/09286586.2023.2207202","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: The accuracy of mobile-based visual acuity testing in clinical practice is debatable. This study aimed to analyze the accuracy of mobile-based distant vision chart in comparison to the standard chart projector.Methods: In this cross-sectional study, monocular distant best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in 571 eyes of 288 subjects was measured twice, using the Tumbling E vision chart by standard chart projector and repeated using mobile-based vision chart application with screen mirroring on a 22-inch monitor. The decimal results of BCVA were compared to analyze the accuracy of the mobile-based chart in comparison to the standard vision chart projector.Results: The mean age of the studied patients was 29 ± 14 years. The most frequent refractive error was hyperopia (35.4%), followed by emmetropia (26.7%), myopia (22.9%), and astigmatism (14.9%). The mean BCVA in decimal form was 0.9 ± 0.2 and 0.91 ± 0.26 by the standard and mobile-based charts, respectively. An excellent agreement was reported between both tests as the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.976, with a confidence interval (CI) of 0.965-0.982. Bland-Altman analysis revealed that most visual acuity differences between both methods lie on the equality line or within the allowed difference zone.Conclusions: The mobile-based vision chart is an economical, accessible, and accurate way for distant vision assessment, and its results are comparable to the standard chart projector in clinical practice.","PeriodicalId":19607,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmic epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":"107-111"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmic epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09286586.2023.2207202","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/4/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The accuracy of mobile-based visual acuity testing in clinical practice is debatable. This study aimed to analyze the accuracy of mobile-based distant vision chart in comparison to the standard chart projector.

Methods: In this cross-sectional study, monocular distant best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in 571 eyes of 288 subjects was measured twice, using the Tumbling E vision chart by standard chart projector and repeated using mobile-based vision chart application with screen mirroring on a 22-inch monitor. The decimal results of BCVA were compared to analyze the accuracy of the mobile-based chart in comparison to the standard vision chart projector.

Results: The mean age of the studied patients was 29 ± 14 years. The most frequent refractive error was hyperopia (35.4%), followed by emmetropia (26.7%), myopia (22.9%), and astigmatism (14.9%). The mean BCVA in decimal form was 0.9 ± 0.2 and 0.91 ± 0.26 by the standard and mobile-based charts, respectively. An excellent agreement was reported between both tests as the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.976, with a confidence interval (CI) of 0.965-0.982. Bland-Altman analysis revealed that most visual acuity differences between both methods lie on the equality line or within the allowed difference zone.

Conclusions: The mobile-based vision chart is an economical, accessible, and accurate way for distant vision assessment, and its results are comparable to the standard chart projector in clinical practice.

查看原文本刊更多论文

在 COVID-19 大流行期间，基于移动设备的视力表在临床实践中的准确性。

目的：在临床实践中，基于移动设备的视力测试的准确性值得商榷。本研究旨在分析移动式远视力表与标准投影仪相比的准确性：在这项横断面研究中，对288名受试者的571只眼睛的单眼远距离最佳矫正视力（BCVA）进行了两次测量，分别使用标准图表投影仪测量Tumbling E视力表，以及在22英寸显示器上使用带屏幕镜像功能的移动视力表应用程序重复测量。对 BCVA 的十进制结果进行比较，以分析移动式视力表与标准视力表投影仪的准确性：研究对象的平均年龄为 29 ± 14 岁。最常见的屈光不正是远视（35.4%），其次是近视（26.7%）、近视（22.9%）和散光（14.9%）。标准视力表和移动视力表的十进制 BCVA 平均值分别为 0.9 ± 0.2 和 0.91 ± 0.26。两种测试结果的类内相关系数（ICC）均为 0.976，置信区间（CI）为 0.965-0.982，两者之间的一致性极佳。Bland-Altman分析表明，两种方法之间的视力差异大多位于相等线或允许的差异范围内：基于手机的视力表是一种经济、方便、准确的远视力评估方法，其结果与临床实践中的标准视力表投影仪相当。

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

Ophthalmic epidemiology 医学-眼科学

CiteScore

3.70

自引率

5.60%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Ophthalmic Epidemiology is dedicated to the publication of original research into eye and vision health in the fields of epidemiology, public health and the prevention of blindness. Ophthalmic Epidemiology publishes editorials, original research reports, systematic reviews and meta-analysis articles, brief communications and letters to the editor on all subjects related to ophthalmic epidemiology. A broad range of topics is suitable, such as: evaluating the risk of ocular diseases, general and specific study designs, screening program implementation and evaluation, eye health care access, delivery and outcomes, therapeutic efficacy or effectiveness, disease prognosis and quality of life, cost-benefit analysis, biostatistical theory and risk factor analysis. We are looking to expand our engagement with reports of international interest, including those regarding problems affecting developing countries, although reports from all over the world potentially are suitable. Clinical case reports, small case series (not enough for a cohort analysis) articles and animal research reports are not appropriate for this journal.