DYOP视力测试的验证。

IF 2.2 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Liat Gantz , Dinah Paritzky , Inbar Wunch , Andrew H. Kageyama , Nadav Wolf , Christina Cherny , Mark Rosenfield
{"title":"DYOP视力测试的验证。","authors":"Liat Gantz ,&nbsp;Dinah Paritzky ,&nbsp;Inbar Wunch ,&nbsp;Andrew H. Kageyama ,&nbsp;Nadav Wolf ,&nbsp;Christina Cherny ,&nbsp;Mark Rosenfield","doi":"10.1016/j.optom.2022.09.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>The dynamic optotype (DYOP) visual acuity (VA) test is based on motion detection rather than element resolution and has been proposed for routine clinical assessment. This investigation examined the validity, inter- and intra-session repeatability and subjective preference for the DYOP versus a static letter chart and examined its utility in detecting astigmatic defocus.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>VA of 103 participants was measured three times with the letter and DYOP charts and repeated within two weeks in 75 participants who also rated their subjective experience. The VA of 29 participants was measured using DYOP, letter, Landolt C, and Tumbling E charts, with habitual correction and astigmatism induced with +1.00, +2.00 or +3.00 cylinders at 45, 60, 90 and 180°.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The charts differed by a mean of 0.02 logMAR, with 81% of the measurements within one line of acuity. Inter-session, intraclass correlation coefficients, within-subject SD and repeatability were 0.03 logMAR, 0.95, 0.11 and 0.30 versus 0.01 logMAR, 0.92, 0.15 and 0.42 for the DYOP and letter charts, respectively. The DYOP was significantly more frustrating (1.79 vs.1.36), with 59% preferring the letter chart. The DYOP was least affected by induced astigmatism.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The DYOP and letter charts differed significantly in their mean values with wide limits of agreement. DYOP had better within-subject SD and narrower limits of agreement between sessions, though clinically insignificant, and performed significantly worse for the detection of uncorrected astigmatism. Thus, it is difficult to recommend this test for the clinical determination of refractive error.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46407,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Optometry","volume":"16 4","pages":"Pages 268-276"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/01/1b/main.PMC10518763.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation of the DYOP visual acuity test\",\"authors\":\"Liat Gantz ,&nbsp;Dinah Paritzky ,&nbsp;Inbar Wunch ,&nbsp;Andrew H. Kageyama ,&nbsp;Nadav Wolf ,&nbsp;Christina Cherny ,&nbsp;Mark Rosenfield\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.optom.2022.09.006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>The dynamic optotype (DYOP) visual acuity (VA) test is based on motion detection rather than element resolution and has been proposed for routine clinical assessment. This investigation examined the validity, inter- and intra-session repeatability and subjective preference for the DYOP versus a static letter chart and examined its utility in detecting astigmatic defocus.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>VA of 103 participants was measured three times with the letter and DYOP charts and repeated within two weeks in 75 participants who also rated their subjective experience. The VA of 29 participants was measured using DYOP, letter, Landolt C, and Tumbling E charts, with habitual correction and astigmatism induced with +1.00, +2.00 or +3.00 cylinders at 45, 60, 90 and 180°.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The charts differed by a mean of 0.02 logMAR, with 81% of the measurements within one line of acuity. Inter-session, intraclass correlation coefficients, within-subject SD and repeatability were 0.03 logMAR, 0.95, 0.11 and 0.30 versus 0.01 logMAR, 0.92, 0.15 and 0.42 for the DYOP and letter charts, respectively. The DYOP was significantly more frustrating (1.79 vs.1.36), with 59% preferring the letter chart. The DYOP was least affected by induced astigmatism.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The DYOP and letter charts differed significantly in their mean values with wide limits of agreement. DYOP had better within-subject SD and narrower limits of agreement between sessions, though clinically insignificant, and performed significantly worse for the detection of uncorrected astigmatism. Thus, it is difficult to recommend this test for the clinical determination of refractive error.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46407,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Optometry\",\"volume\":\"16 4\",\"pages\":\"Pages 268-276\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/01/1b/main.PMC10518763.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Optometry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1888429622000656\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Optometry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1888429622000656","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的:动态视型(DYOP)视力(VA)测试基于运动检测而非元件分辨率,已被提议用于常规临床评估。与静态字母图相比,本研究检查了DYOP的有效性、会话间和会话内的可重复性以及主观偏好,并检查了其在检测散光散焦方面的实用性。方法:用字母表和DYOP表对103名参与者的VA进行了三次测量,并在两周内对75名参与者进行了重复测量,这些参与者还对他们的主观体验进行了评分。29名参与者的VA使用DYOP、letter、Landolt C和翻滚E图进行测量,并在45°、60°、90°和180°下用+1.00、+2.00或+3.00柱面进行习惯性矫正和散光。结果:这些图表的平均差异为0.02 logMAR,81%的测量结果在一条视力线内。疗程间、组内相关系数、受试者SD和重复性分别为0.03、0.95、0.11和0.30,而DYOP和字母图分别为0.01、0.92、0.15和0.42。DYOP明显更令人沮丧(1.79对1.36),59%的人更喜欢字母表。DYOP受诱导散光的影响最小。结论:DYOP和字母图的平均值存在显著差异,一致性范围很广。DYOP在受试者SD范围内表现较好,两次治疗之间的一致性范围较窄,尽管在临床上不显著,但在未矫正散光的检测方面表现明显较差。因此,很难推荐这种测试来进行屈光不正的临床测定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Validation of the DYOP visual acuity test

Validation of the DYOP visual acuity test

Validation of the DYOP visual acuity test

Validation of the DYOP visual acuity test

Purpose

The dynamic optotype (DYOP) visual acuity (VA) test is based on motion detection rather than element resolution and has been proposed for routine clinical assessment. This investigation examined the validity, inter- and intra-session repeatability and subjective preference for the DYOP versus a static letter chart and examined its utility in detecting astigmatic defocus.

Methods

VA of 103 participants was measured three times with the letter and DYOP charts and repeated within two weeks in 75 participants who also rated their subjective experience. The VA of 29 participants was measured using DYOP, letter, Landolt C, and Tumbling E charts, with habitual correction and astigmatism induced with +1.00, +2.00 or +3.00 cylinders at 45, 60, 90 and 180°.

Results

The charts differed by a mean of 0.02 logMAR, with 81% of the measurements within one line of acuity. Inter-session, intraclass correlation coefficients, within-subject SD and repeatability were 0.03 logMAR, 0.95, 0.11 and 0.30 versus 0.01 logMAR, 0.92, 0.15 and 0.42 for the DYOP and letter charts, respectively. The DYOP was significantly more frustrating (1.79 vs.1.36), with 59% preferring the letter chart. The DYOP was least affected by induced astigmatism.

Conclusions

The DYOP and letter charts differed significantly in their mean values with wide limits of agreement. DYOP had better within-subject SD and narrower limits of agreement between sessions, though clinically insignificant, and performed significantly worse for the detection of uncorrected astigmatism. Thus, it is difficult to recommend this test for the clinical determination of refractive error.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Optometry
Journal of Optometry OPHTHALMOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
60
审稿时长
66 days
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信