基于智能手机的视力测试(WHOeyes)与自动距离校准的实际应用。

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY British Journal of Ophthalmology Pub Date : 2024-10-22 DOI:10.1136/bjo-2023-324913
Yi Wu, Stuart Keel, Vera Lúcia Alves Carneiro, Shiran Zhang, Wei Wang, Chi Liu, Xuanzhang Tang, Xiaotong Han, Mingguang He
{"title":"基于智能手机的视力测试(WHOeyes)与自动距离校准的实际应用。","authors":"Yi Wu, Stuart Keel, Vera Lúcia Alves Carneiro, Shiran Zhang, Wei Wang, Chi Liu, Xuanzhang Tang, Xiaotong Han, Mingguang He","doi":"10.1136/bjo-2023-324913","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To develop and assess the usability of a smartphone-based visual acuity (VA) test with an automatic distance calibration (ADC) function, the iOS version of WHOeyes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The WHOeyes was an upgraded version with a distinct feature of ADC of an existing validated VA testing app called V@home. Three groups of Chinese participants with different ages (≤20, 20-40, >40 years) were recruited for distance and near VA testing using both an Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart and the WHOeyes. The ADC function would determine the testing distance. Infrared rangefinder was used to determine the testing distance for the ETDRS, and actual testing distance for the WHOeyes. A questionnaire-based interview was administered to assess the satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The actual testing distance determined by the WHOeyes ADC showed an overall good agreement with the desired testing distance in all three age groups (p>0.50). Regarding the distance and near VA testing, the accuracy of WHOeyes was equivalent to ETDRS. The mean difference between the WHOeyes and ETDRS ranged from -0.084 to 0.012 logMAR, and the quadratic weighted kappa (QWK) values were >0.75 across all groups. The test-retest reliability of WHOeyes was high for both near and distance VA, with a mean difference ranging from -0.040 to 0.004 logMAR and QWK all >0.85. The questionnaire revealed an excellent user experience and acceptance of WHOeyes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>WHOeyes could provide accurate measurement of the testing distance as well as the distance and near VA when compared to the gold standard ETDRS chart.</p>","PeriodicalId":9313,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Ophthalmology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Real-world application of a smartphone-based visual acuity test (WHOeyes) with automatic distance calibration.\",\"authors\":\"Yi Wu, Stuart Keel, Vera Lúcia Alves Carneiro, Shiran Zhang, Wei Wang, Chi Liu, Xuanzhang Tang, Xiaotong Han, Mingguang He\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bjo-2023-324913\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To develop and assess the usability of a smartphone-based visual acuity (VA) test with an automatic distance calibration (ADC) function, the iOS version of WHOeyes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The WHOeyes was an upgraded version with a distinct feature of ADC of an existing validated VA testing app called V@home. Three groups of Chinese participants with different ages (≤20, 20-40, >40 years) were recruited for distance and near VA testing using both an Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart and the WHOeyes. The ADC function would determine the testing distance. Infrared rangefinder was used to determine the testing distance for the ETDRS, and actual testing distance for the WHOeyes. A questionnaire-based interview was administered to assess the satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The actual testing distance determined by the WHOeyes ADC showed an overall good agreement with the desired testing distance in all three age groups (p>0.50). Regarding the distance and near VA testing, the accuracy of WHOeyes was equivalent to ETDRS. The mean difference between the WHOeyes and ETDRS ranged from -0.084 to 0.012 logMAR, and the quadratic weighted kappa (QWK) values were >0.75 across all groups. The test-retest reliability of WHOeyes was high for both near and distance VA, with a mean difference ranging from -0.040 to 0.004 logMAR and QWK all >0.85. The questionnaire revealed an excellent user experience and acceptance of WHOeyes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>WHOeyes could provide accurate measurement of the testing distance as well as the distance and near VA when compared to the gold standard ETDRS chart.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Ophthalmology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Ophthalmology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo-2023-324913\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo-2023-324913","RegionNum":2,"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

摘要

背景:开发并评估基于智能手机、具有自动距离校准(ADC)功能的视力(VA)测试--iOS版WHOeyes:目的:开发并评估基于智能手机的视力测试(VA)的可用性,该测试具有自动距离校准(ADC)功能,即iOS版本的WHOeyes:方法:WHOeyes是现有有效视力测试应用程序V@home的升级版,具有ADC功能。我们招募了三组不同年龄(≤20岁、20-40岁、40岁以上)的中国参与者,使用早期治疗糖尿病视网膜病变研究(ETDRS)图表和WHOeyes进行远近视力测试。ADC 功能将决定测试距离。红外线测距仪用于确定 ETDRS 的测试距离和 WHOeyes 的实际测试距离。为评估满意度,还进行了问卷调查:结果:在所有三个年龄组中,WHOeyes ADC 测定的实际测试距离与预期测试距离总体上吻合良好(p>0.50)。在远近视力测试方面,WHOeyes 的准确性与 ETDRS 相当。WHOeyes与ETDRS之间的平均差值为-0.084至0.012 logMAR,所有组别的二次加权卡帕(QWK)值均大于0.75。WHOeyes在近距离和远距离视力方面的测试-再测可靠性都很高,平均差在-0.040至0.004 logMAR之间,QWK均大于0.85。调查问卷显示,WHOeyes 的用户体验和接受度都非常好:结论:与黄金标准 ETDRS 图表相比,WHOeyes 可以准确测量测试距离以及远近视力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Real-world application of a smartphone-based visual acuity test (WHOeyes) with automatic distance calibration.

Background: To develop and assess the usability of a smartphone-based visual acuity (VA) test with an automatic distance calibration (ADC) function, the iOS version of WHOeyes.

Methods: The WHOeyes was an upgraded version with a distinct feature of ADC of an existing validated VA testing app called V@home. Three groups of Chinese participants with different ages (≤20, 20-40, >40 years) were recruited for distance and near VA testing using both an Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart and the WHOeyes. The ADC function would determine the testing distance. Infrared rangefinder was used to determine the testing distance for the ETDRS, and actual testing distance for the WHOeyes. A questionnaire-based interview was administered to assess the satisfaction.

Results: The actual testing distance determined by the WHOeyes ADC showed an overall good agreement with the desired testing distance in all three age groups (p>0.50). Regarding the distance and near VA testing, the accuracy of WHOeyes was equivalent to ETDRS. The mean difference between the WHOeyes and ETDRS ranged from -0.084 to 0.012 logMAR, and the quadratic weighted kappa (QWK) values were >0.75 across all groups. The test-retest reliability of WHOeyes was high for both near and distance VA, with a mean difference ranging from -0.040 to 0.004 logMAR and QWK all >0.85. The questionnaire revealed an excellent user experience and acceptance of WHOeyes.

Conclusions: WHOeyes could provide accurate measurement of the testing distance as well as the distance and near VA when compared to the gold standard ETDRS chart.

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
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
2.40%
发文量
213
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Ophthalmology (BJO) is an international peer-reviewed journal for ophthalmologists and visual science specialists. BJO publishes clinical investigations, clinical observations, and clinically relevant laboratory investigations related to ophthalmology. It also provides major reviews and also publishes manuscripts covering regional issues in a global context.
期刊最新文献
Nyctohemeral effects of topical beta-adrenoceptor blocking agents measured with an intraocular telemetry sensor Intracellular dark spots are associated with endothelial cell loss after Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty At a glance Deep learning-based normative database of anterior chamber dimensions for angle closure assessment: the Singapore Chinese Eye Study In vivo lacrimal gland imaging artefact assessment based on swept-source optical coherence tomography for dry eye disease
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1