Kevin J Mena-Guevara, Dolores de Fez, Ainhoa Molina-Martín, David P Piñero
{"title":"使用新的在线数字平台进行双眼视觉测量：与传统临床测量的比较。","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
临床相关性：正在开发新的数字系统来评估视觉功能的不同方面，如双眼性，了解它们在临床实践中的真实表现以正确使用它们很重要。背景：目的是将通过在线数字平台获得的双眼视觉测量与使用棱镜和打印测试的传统测量进行比较。方法：前瞻性研究纳入49名健康患者（平均年龄：35.5岁） ± 13.6 年）。进行了完整的视觉检查，包括近斜视（遮盖测试）、阴性融合会聚（NFV）和阳性融合会聚（PFV）范围（棱镜条）以及立体视觉（24名患者随机立体测试和25名患者TNO随机点测试第19版）的测量。这些相同的参数也用Bynocs系统（Kanohi Eye Pvt Ltd）测量。Bland-Altman图用于分析方法之间的一致性。结果：近焦的数字测量显著低于覆盖测试，中位差值（MD）为4.71（-0.07-20.07）棱镜屈光度（pd）（p p = 0.584）和回收点（MD 0.00，范围16-24 pd，p = .571）。Bynocs的近PFV显著降低（断裂：MD-9.00，范围-38-12 pd；回收率：MD-14.00，范围-43-20 pd；p p = 0.004），但明显高于Randot（p 结论：Bynocs平台的近视、NFV、PFV和立体视觉的数字测量不能与传统测量互换使用。定义了这个新工具的正态性的正态范围。
Binocular vision measurements with a new online digital platform: comparison with conventional clinical measures.
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
