Journal of Optometry最新文献

Purpose

To assess the agreement between the Eye Refract, an instrument to perform subjective automated refraction, and the traditional subjective refraction, as the gold standard, in young hyperopes under noncycloplegic and cycloplegic conditions.

Methods

A cross-section and randomized study was carried out, involving 42 participants (18.2 ± 7.7 years, range 6 to 31 years). Only one eye was chosen for the analysis, randomly. An optometrist conducted the refraction with the Eye Refract, while another different optometrist conducted the traditional subjective refraction. Spherical equivalent (M), cylindrical components (J0 and J45), and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) were compared between both refraction methods under noncycloplegic and cycloplegic conditions. A Bland-Altman analysis was performed to assess the agreement (accuracy and precision) between both refraction methods.

Results

Without cycloplegia, the Eye Refract showed significantly lower values of hyperopia than the traditional subjective refraction (p < 0.009), the mean difference (accuracy) and its 95% limits of agreement (precision) being -0.31 (+0.85, -1.47) D. Conversely, there were no statistical differences between both refraction methods under cycloplegic conditions (p ≥ 0.05). Regarding J0 and J45, both refraction methods manifested no significant differences between them under noncycloplegic and cycloplegic conditions (p ≥ 0.05). Finally, the Eye Refract significantly improved CDVA (0.04 ± 0.01 logMAR) compared with the traditional subjective refraction without cycloplegia (p = 0.01).

Conclusions

The Eye Refract is presented as a useful instrument to determine the refractive error in young hyperopes, the use of cycloplegia being necessary to obtain accurate and precise spherical refraction.

Purpose

To assess reading performance and report normative values for normal sighted Portuguese schoolchildren using the Portuguese version of the MNREAD reading acuity chart.

Methods

Children in the 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th^, and 10th grade in Portugal were recruited for this study. One hundred and sixty-seven children from 7 to 16 years of age participated. The Portuguese version of the printed MNREAD reading acuity chart was used to measure reading performance in these children. The non-linear mixed effects model with negative exponential decay function was used to compute maximum reading speed (MRS) and critical print size (CPS) automatically. Reading acuity (RA) and reading accessibility index (ACC) were computed manually.

Results

The mean MRS in words-per-minute (wpm) for the 2nd grade was 55 wpm (SD = 11.2 wpm), 104 wpm (SD = 27.9) for the 4th grade, 149 wpm (SD = 22.5) for 6th grade, 172 wpm (SD = 24.6) for 8th grade and 180 wpm for the 10th grade (SD = 16.8). There was a significant difference in MRS between school grades (p < 0.001). Participants’ reading speed increased by 14.5 wpm (95% CL: 13.1–15.9) with each year of increase in age. We found a significant difference between RA and school grades, but not for CPS.

Conclusions

This study provides normative reading performance values for the Portuguese version of the MNREAD chart. The MRS increased with increasing age and school grade, while RA shows initial improvement from early school years and gradually stabilizes in the more mature children. Normative values for the MNREAD test can now be used to determine reading difficulties or slow reading speed in, for example, children with impaired vision.

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.

Purpose

The aim of this study was to systematically review and meta-analyse epidemiological data of refractive error prevalence in Portugal.

Methods

A structured search strategy and systematic literature review was applied to multiple databases, such as MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, official organizations and academic repositorium's, to identify all relevant epidemiological studies in Portugal until February 2021. The outcome measure was the prevalence of refractive error among the Portuguese population. The events and sample size were entered as raw data and the effect size parameters were computed by Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software.

Results

A total of 9 studies were pooled for the meta-analysis. The fixed effects model points to an estimated effect size of 43% (95% CI: 41.9–44.1%). However, the statistics of heterogeneity (Q-value p < 0.001; I-squared =99.344) showed very high heterogeneity among studies and recommends using a random-effects model. The random effects model points to an estimated effect size of 31.9% (95% CI: 19.8–47.0%) prevalence of refractive error in the Portuguese population.

Conclusions

A prevalence of refractive error in Portugal of 31.9% (95% CI: 20.0–47.0%) can be considered as a conservative approach to the real burden of this condition. However, it translates into at least 2 to 4.5 million Portuguese individuals with a refractive error. The high heterogeneity between studies, the wide estimate and the random effects involved demonstrate the need for more studies and consistent sources to obtain narrower estimates.

Purpose

Optometry education strives to develop competencies required for reflective practice in its pupils. The forced changes in academia during COVID-19 pandemic, rapid switching to online methods imposed serious challenges on the training of reflective skills. We hypothesize that the synchronous online sessions of case-based reflections are effective in imparting training for reflective practice in optometry students.

Methods

A prospective study was done with planned, synchronous, online, small group workshops for case-based reflections through the second year of optometry program during ‘introduction to patient care’ course. The reflective competencies were measured with a modified Groningen Reflection Ability Scale (GRAS) at the beginning and towards conclusion. Data was analysed with Mann-Whitney one tail test and qualitative thematic methods.

Results

Total of 104 students participated in the study. The aggregate score showed significant improvement (p<0.05) in students’ reflective ability. A rising trend was seen in each component namely self-reflection, empathetic and communication reflections.

Discussions

The results demonstrate that the reflective skills can be developed using virtual patient experiences, case-based reflective practices conducted in synchronous small group workshops in online mode. Students perceived it as useful activity in developing themselves as healthcare professionals.

Purpose

This study aimed to translate the Convergence Insufficiency Symptom Survey (CISS) into the Italian language and assess psychometric properties of the translated questionnaire (CISS_I).

Methods

The CISS_I was arranged according to guidelines for a comprehensive multistep methodologic process for translating, adapting, and validating psychometric instruments in health care research. The CISS_I questionnaire was administered to 103 volunteers (21.8 ± 2.2 years), students in higher education, at two different times. A complete optometric evaluation was performed including subjective refraction, best corrected visual acuity, near point of convergence, prism fusional ranges to blur, diplopia and recovery, TNO stereo test and prism cover test for measurement of heterophoria.

Results

The performance of the CISS_I in terms of validity showed some points of weakness. Sensitivity was 42%, specificity was 74%, positive predictive value was 27% and negative predictive value was 85%. The area under the ROC curve was 0.672. On the contrary, the results showed good internal consistency of the CISS_I (Cronbach's alpha - α=0.89) and good test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.92). Rasch analysis showed good model fit (all items, except one, with infit and outfit mean square between 0.7 and 1.3), good measurement precision (person separation = 2.66) and good targeting –0,81 logits but also some evidence of multidimensionality.

Conclusions

The CISS_I showed some point of weakness in terms of validity but also good psychometric properties and has been shown to be applicable to an Italian speaking population to quantify the visual discomfort associated with near vision in higher education students. The results show that high CISS_I score is not necessarily linked to convergence insufficiency, while low scores can exclude the presence of this anomaly. The CISS_I can help in interpreting and monitoring convergence insufficiency symptoms in already identified subjects, but it is not suitable for screening a general population of young adults.

Several clinical techniques have been described to evaluate visual performance and optical quality with intraocular lenses (IOL). However, subjective refraction remains one of the most important methods for assessing post-surgery results, taking decisions about retreatments, advanced spectacle prescription and the refinement of the constant for the formula used in the IOL power calculation. Beyond clinical refraction, defocus curve measurement has been described as a complementary tool for assessing visual performance and taking clinical decisions. However, to date, there are no clinical guidelines or evidence-based protocols published in the scientific literature recommended for pseudophakic patients implanted with either monofocal or multifocal IOLs. This narrative review highlights the importance of clinical refraction in pseudophakic eyes, its utility in the decision of different types of IOL implantation, and describes a clinical refraction protocol for eyes implanted with monofocal and multifocal IOLs.

Purpose

Personal mobile devices such as smartphones are proving their usefulness in ever more applications in tele-eyecare. An inconvenience and potential source of error in these past approaches stemmed from the requirement for the subjects to situate their devices at a distance. The present study aims to clinically validate best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) measures carried out by a novel smartphone application “vision.app” (VisionApp Solutions S.L.) using comparative statistics against clinical measurements.

Materials and methods

BCVA was measured in both eyes of 40 subjects using vision.app which displayed a black Landolt-C optotype with crowding on a white background, and utilized a 4 forced-choice procedure for the subjects to find (by means of swiping in either of four directions) the smallest optotype size they could resolve. Results were compared to BCVA measurements taken using a standard Snellen chart placed at 20 feet (6 m).

Results

The t-test revealed no significant differences between the app- and clinically-measured VA (p = 0.478 (OD) and 0.608 (OS)), with a mean difference between clinical and app measurements of less than one line of the eye chart (-0.009 logMAR (OD) and -0.005 logMAR (OS)). A limit of agreement for a 95% confidence interval of ± 0.08 logMAR for OD and OS was found.

Conclusions

The results show the potential use of a smartphone to measure BCVA at a handheld distance. The newly validated study results can hold major future advancements in tele-eyecare and provide eye care professionals with a reliable and accessible method to measure BCVA.