使用计算机楼梯和增量视型尺寸来提高视力评估的准确性。

Q3 Medicine British and Irish Orthoptic Journal Pub Date : 2022-07-20 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.22599/bioj.271
Anna O'Connor, Chloe King, Ashli Milling, Laurence Tidbury
{"title":"使用计算机楼梯和增量视型尺寸来提高视力评估的准确性。","authors":"Anna O'Connor,&nbsp;Chloe King,&nbsp;Ashli Milling,&nbsp;Laurence Tidbury","doi":"10.22599/bioj.271","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Given the impact of visual acuity results on diagnosis and management, it is essential that the test is accurate, determined by factors such as test-retest variability. Standardisation improves accuracy, which can be performed via a computerised staircase methodology. Standard clinical tests with scoring of 0.02 per optotype implies an incremental score per optotype despite optotype size remaining constant on each line. The aim of this study is to establish if near continuous incremental optotype display and scoring improves test-retest variability compared to current testing methods.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A computerised three up, one down adaptive staircase was used to display Kay Picture optotypes on an LCD monitor. Three methods of visual acuity assessment were undertaken: ETDRS, Kay Pictures and computerised Kay Pictures. Tests were performed twice under standard clinical conditions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred nineteen adults were tested. Test-retest variability for computerised Kay pictures was 0.01 logMAR (±0.04, p = 0.001). Good levels of agreement were observed for computerised Kay pictures in terms of test-retest variability, where the test had the smallest mean bias (0.01 logMAR compared to 0.03 and 0.08 logMAR for Kay Pictures and ETDRS respectively) and narrowest limits of agreement. Participants performed better in computerised Kay pictures than Kay Pictures by 0.03 logMAR, and better in ETDRS than computerised Kay pictures by 0.1 logMAR.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Computerised Kay pictures exhibited a low test-retest variability, demonstrating it is reliable and repeatable. This repeatability measure is lower than the test-retest variability of the ETDRS and Kay Pictures tests.</p>","PeriodicalId":36083,"journal":{"name":"British and Irish Orthoptic Journal","volume":" ","pages":"93-100"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9306677/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Using a Computerised Staircase and Incremental Optotype Sizes to Improve Visual Acuity Assessment Accuracy.\",\"authors\":\"Anna O'Connor,&nbsp;Chloe King,&nbsp;Ashli Milling,&nbsp;Laurence Tidbury\",\"doi\":\"10.22599/bioj.271\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Given the impact of visual acuity results on diagnosis and management, it is essential that the test is accurate, determined by factors such as test-retest variability. Standardisation improves accuracy, which can be performed via a computerised staircase methodology. Standard clinical tests with scoring of 0.02 per optotype implies an incremental score per optotype despite optotype size remaining constant on each line. The aim of this study is to establish if near continuous incremental optotype display and scoring improves test-retest variability compared to current testing methods.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A computerised three up, one down adaptive staircase was used to display Kay Picture optotypes on an LCD monitor. Three methods of visual acuity assessment were undertaken: ETDRS, Kay Pictures and computerised Kay Pictures. Tests were performed twice under standard clinical conditions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred nineteen adults were tested. Test-retest variability for computerised Kay pictures was 0.01 logMAR (±0.04, p = 0.001). Good levels of agreement were observed for computerised Kay pictures in terms of test-retest variability, where the test had the smallest mean bias (0.01 logMAR compared to 0.03 and 0.08 logMAR for Kay Pictures and ETDRS respectively) and narrowest limits of agreement. Participants performed better in computerised Kay pictures than Kay Pictures by 0.03 logMAR, and better in ETDRS than computerised Kay pictures by 0.1 logMAR.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Computerised Kay pictures exhibited a low test-retest variability, demonstrating it is reliable and repeatable. This repeatability measure is lower than the test-retest variability of the ETDRS and Kay Pictures tests.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36083,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British and Irish Orthoptic Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"93-100\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9306677/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British and Irish Orthoptic Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22599/bioj.271\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British and Irish Orthoptic Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22599/bioj.271","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:考虑到视力结果对诊断和治疗的影响,测试的准确性是至关重要的,这是由测试-重测试变异性等因素决定的。标准化提高了准确性,这可以通过计算机化的楼梯方法来执行。每个光型评分为0.02的标准临床试验意味着尽管每条线上的光型大小保持不变,但每个光型的评分是递增的。本研究的目的是确定与目前的测试方法相比,近连续增量的光型显示和评分是否能改善测试重测变异性。方法:采用计算机化的三上一下自适应楼梯,在液晶显示器上显示Kay Picture光型。采用ETDRS、Kay Pictures和计算机Kay Pictures三种方法进行视力评估。在标准临床条件下进行了两次测试。结果:对119名成年人进行了测试。计算机化Kay图像的重测变异性为0.01 logMAR(±0.04,p = 0.001)。计算机化Kay图像在测试-重测变异性方面具有良好的一致性,其中测试具有最小的平均偏差(0.01 logMAR,而Kay pictures和ETDRS分别为0.03和0.08 logMAR)和最小的一致性限制。参与者在计算机化Kay图片上的表现比Kay图片好0.03个logMAR,在ETDRS上的表现比计算机化Kay图片好0.1个logMAR。结论:计算机化Kay图像具有较低的重测变异性,证明其可靠且可重复。这种重复性测量低于ETDRS和Kay Pictures测试的测试-重测试变异性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Using a Computerised Staircase and Incremental Optotype Sizes to Improve Visual Acuity Assessment Accuracy.

Background: Given the impact of visual acuity results on diagnosis and management, it is essential that the test is accurate, determined by factors such as test-retest variability. Standardisation improves accuracy, which can be performed via a computerised staircase methodology. Standard clinical tests with scoring of 0.02 per optotype implies an incremental score per optotype despite optotype size remaining constant on each line. The aim of this study is to establish if near continuous incremental optotype display and scoring improves test-retest variability compared to current testing methods.

Methods: A computerised three up, one down adaptive staircase was used to display Kay Picture optotypes on an LCD monitor. Three methods of visual acuity assessment were undertaken: ETDRS, Kay Pictures and computerised Kay Pictures. Tests were performed twice under standard clinical conditions.

Results: One hundred nineteen adults were tested. Test-retest variability for computerised Kay pictures was 0.01 logMAR (±0.04, p = 0.001). Good levels of agreement were observed for computerised Kay pictures in terms of test-retest variability, where the test had the smallest mean bias (0.01 logMAR compared to 0.03 and 0.08 logMAR for Kay Pictures and ETDRS respectively) and narrowest limits of agreement. Participants performed better in computerised Kay pictures than Kay Pictures by 0.03 logMAR, and better in ETDRS than computerised Kay pictures by 0.1 logMAR.

Conclusion: Computerised Kay pictures exhibited a low test-retest variability, demonstrating it is reliable and repeatable. This repeatability measure is lower than the test-retest variability of the ETDRS and Kay Pictures tests.

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
British and Irish Orthoptic Journal
British and Irish Orthoptic Journal Health Professions-Optometry
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
Opinions on Amblyopia Treatment in Microtropia - A Questionnaire Study of Orthoptists in Scandinavia. Spectrum of Visual Dysfunction Detected by a Novel Testing Protocol Within a Special School Eye Care Service. Artificial Intelligence Chatbots (ChatGPT and Google Gemini) Versus Traditional Patient Information Leaflets for Local Anesthesia in Eye Surgery: Correspondence. Compliance and Determinants of Spectacle Wear Among Moroccan Adults Residing Beni-Mellal Khénifra Region. Risk Factors for Acute Acquired Comitant Esotropia in Children and Young Adults: A Systematic Review.
×
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