Blanca Montori, Teresa Pérez Roche, Maria Vilella, Estela López, Adrián Alejandre, Xian Pan, Marta Ortín, Marta Lacort, Victoria Pueyo
{"title":"不同视力测试的比较和数字设备的验证。","authors":"Blanca Montori, Teresa Pérez Roche, Maria Vilella, Estela López, Adrián Alejandre, Xian Pan, Marta Ortín, Marta Lacort, Victoria Pueyo","doi":"10.3390/vision8030057","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare different visual acuity (VA) tests (printed and digital, symbols and letters) and to validate a new device for VA testing called DIVE (Devices for an Integral Visual Examination).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>VA was tested in a wide spectrum of adult people with printed tests (ETDRS and LEA Symbols) and with two implemented tests in DIVE (HOTV and DIVE Symbols). We measured agreement between the different VA tests using the intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman method. In addition, we measured the repeatability of all tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Right eyes from 51 adult participants were included in the study. Correlation between tests was high (ICC from 0.95 to 0.97). Bland-Altman analysis showed good agreement among the different tests, with differences within reasonable clinical limits. However, slightly better VA values were obtained with DIVE HOTV and ETDRS, followed by LEA and DIVE Symbols. ETDRS had the best repeatability.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The four evaluated VA tests provide comparable outcomes. In an adult sample, letter optotypes obtained better VA values than symbol optotypes. DIVE VA tests are reliable and well-correlated with printed VA tests.</p>","PeriodicalId":36586,"journal":{"name":"Vision (Switzerland)","volume":"8 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11437472/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison between Different Visual Acuity Tests and Validation of a Digital Device.\",\"authors\":\"Blanca Montori, Teresa Pérez Roche, Maria Vilella, Estela López, Adrián Alejandre, Xian Pan, Marta Ortín, Marta Lacort, Victoria Pueyo\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/vision8030057\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare different visual acuity (VA) tests (printed and digital, symbols and letters) and to validate a new device for VA testing called DIVE (Devices for an Integral Visual Examination).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>VA was tested in a wide spectrum of adult people with printed tests (ETDRS and LEA Symbols) and with two implemented tests in DIVE (HOTV and DIVE Symbols). We measured agreement between the different VA tests using the intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman method. In addition, we measured the repeatability of all tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Right eyes from 51 adult participants were included in the study. Correlation between tests was high (ICC from 0.95 to 0.97). Bland-Altman analysis showed good agreement among the different tests, with differences within reasonable clinical limits. However, slightly better VA values were obtained with DIVE HOTV and ETDRS, followed by LEA and DIVE Symbols. ETDRS had the best repeatability.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The four evaluated VA tests provide comparable outcomes. In an adult sample, letter optotypes obtained better VA values than symbol optotypes. DIVE VA tests are reliable and well-correlated with printed VA tests.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36586,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Vision (Switzerland)\",\"volume\":\"8 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11437472/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Vision (Switzerland)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/vision8030057\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vision (Switzerland)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/vision8030057","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison between Different Visual Acuity Tests and Validation of a Digital Device.
Purpose: To compare different visual acuity (VA) tests (printed and digital, symbols and letters) and to validate a new device for VA testing called DIVE (Devices for an Integral Visual Examination).
Methods: VA was tested in a wide spectrum of adult people with printed tests (ETDRS and LEA Symbols) and with two implemented tests in DIVE (HOTV and DIVE Symbols). We measured agreement between the different VA tests using the intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman method. In addition, we measured the repeatability of all tests.
Results: Right eyes from 51 adult participants were included in the study. Correlation between tests was high (ICC from 0.95 to 0.97). Bland-Altman analysis showed good agreement among the different tests, with differences within reasonable clinical limits. However, slightly better VA values were obtained with DIVE HOTV and ETDRS, followed by LEA and DIVE Symbols. ETDRS had the best repeatability.
Conclusion: The four evaluated VA tests provide comparable outcomes. In an adult sample, letter optotypes obtained better VA values than symbol optotypes. DIVE VA tests are reliable and well-correlated with printed VA tests.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
