The evaluation of two new computer-based tests for measurement of aniseikonia: discussion.

Abstract

Purpose: To discuss the clinical relevance of the article with the same name by authors R.J. Fullard, R.P. Rutstein and D.A. Corliss.

Methods: The results of the authors are compared to clinical relevant aniseikonia values. Also, the (in)accuracy of the analysis is questioned.

Results: The authors used an aniseikonia test range (-3.5% to 3.5%) that for the most part will not give symptoms. The measurement results show deviations from the expected aniseikonia values in the order of 0.3%, which is not clinically significant. The repeatability values found (approximately 0.5%) are small enough for clinically useful aniseikonia management. More accurate results could have been obtained if the accuracy of the the size lenses would have been taken into account.

Conclusions: When considering the clinical relevance of the findings in the article, it becomes clear that the Aniseikonia Inspector is a useful (and only) tool for complete aniseikonia management.