Austin Raney, Savannah Cottom, Jonathan Huff, Tavis Phan, Austin LaGrow, Christian Leal, Justin D Dvorak, Kamran M Riaz
{"title":"Accuracy of a commonly used mobile ophthalmology application's vision assessment tools in measuring five vision assessment parameters.","authors":"Austin Raney, Savannah Cottom, Jonathan Huff, Tavis Phan, Austin LaGrow, Christian Leal, Justin D Dvorak, Kamran M Riaz","doi":"10.1038/s41433-024-03315-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/objectives: </strong>The use of mobile ophthalmology applications (MOA) is increasing, but many of these tools have not been validated. This study was performed to assess the accuracy of a popular MOA, Eye Handbook, in measuring five commonly-tested vision assessment parameters (distance visual acuity (DVA), near visual acuity (NVA), colour vision testing (CVT), contrast sensitivity (CS), and pupillary distance (PD)) was compared with traditional vision assessment methods (TVAM) [i.e. Snellen chart, Rosenbaum near card, Ishihara, Pelli Robson test, etc.] performed in the eye clinic setting.</p><p><strong>Subjects/methods: </strong>Prospective crossover clinical trial of 129 patients meeting inclusion criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants averaged significantly better DVA (p = 0.0008), NVA (p < 0.0001), and CVT (p = 0.0105) in the MOA than the TVAM, but all three MOA assessments were predictive of the TVAM values. CS was significantly better with the MOA (p < 0.0001). Linear regression and Spearman correlation tests were applied to assess the effect of CS on NVA, which showed no clear relationship between the difference in NVA and the difference in CS. PD using the two methods was in agreement with no significant difference (p = 0.2889).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The studied MOA offers an effective means of measuring four common vision parameters: DVA, NVA, CVT, and PD. The MOA can potentially be used by eye care providers, health care providers, and patients, both as a screening tool with correction factor and to monitor ocular pathologies. Atypical MOA measurements should prompt testing in the clinic with formal TVAMs.</p>","PeriodicalId":12125,"journal":{"name":"Eye","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Eye","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-024-03315-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background/objectives: The use of mobile ophthalmology applications (MOA) is increasing, but many of these tools have not been validated. This study was performed to assess the accuracy of a popular MOA, Eye Handbook, in measuring five commonly-tested vision assessment parameters (distance visual acuity (DVA), near visual acuity (NVA), colour vision testing (CVT), contrast sensitivity (CS), and pupillary distance (PD)) was compared with traditional vision assessment methods (TVAM) [i.e. Snellen chart, Rosenbaum near card, Ishihara, Pelli Robson test, etc.] performed in the eye clinic setting.
Results: Participants averaged significantly better DVA (p = 0.0008), NVA (p < 0.0001), and CVT (p = 0.0105) in the MOA than the TVAM, but all three MOA assessments were predictive of the TVAM values. CS was significantly better with the MOA (p < 0.0001). Linear regression and Spearman correlation tests were applied to assess the effect of CS on NVA, which showed no clear relationship between the difference in NVA and the difference in CS. PD using the two methods was in agreement with no significant difference (p = 0.2889).
Conclusion: The studied MOA offers an effective means of measuring four common vision parameters: DVA, NVA, CVT, and PD. The MOA can potentially be used by eye care providers, health care providers, and patients, both as a screening tool with correction factor and to monitor ocular pathologies. Atypical MOA measurements should prompt testing in the clinic with formal TVAMs.
期刊介绍:
Eye seeks to provide the international practising ophthalmologist with high quality articles, of academic rigour, on the latest global clinical and laboratory based research. Its core aim is to advance the science and practice of ophthalmology with the latest clinical- and scientific-based research. Whilst principally aimed at the practising clinician, the journal contains material of interest to a wider readership including optometrists, orthoptists, other health care professionals and research workers in all aspects of the field of visual science worldwide. Eye is the official journal of The Royal College of Ophthalmologists.
Eye encourages the submission of original articles covering all aspects of ophthalmology including: external eye disease; oculo-plastic surgery; orbital and lacrimal disease; ocular surface and corneal disorders; paediatric ophthalmology and strabismus; glaucoma; medical and surgical retina; neuro-ophthalmology; cataract and refractive surgery; ocular oncology; ophthalmic pathology; ophthalmic genetics.