Evaluating the use of a temperature sensor to monitor spectacle compliance in warm versus cold climates.
dose monitoring
objective monitoring
spectacle compliance
thermosensor
Journal
Clinical & experimental optometry
ISSN: 1444-0938
Titre abrégé: Clin Exp Optom
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8703442
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2019
03 2019
Historique:
received:
09
03
2018
revised:
27
08
2018
accepted:
28
08
2018
pubmed:
4
10
2018
medline:
1
4
2020
entrez:
4
10
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study investigates the utility of a temperature sensor data logger to monitor spectacle compliance for future application in research and clinical settings. Specifically, the question of whether warm versus cold climates negatively impact accuracy of the sensor to monitor spectacle wear is investigated. Fifty adults from Houston, Texas (summer) and 40 adults from Columbus, Ohio (winter) wore a thermosensor on their spectacles for one week while keeping wear-time logs. Temperatures during reported spectacle wear (ON) were compared to temperatures during non-wear (OFF) between sites. Two methods to approximate wear time were evaluated by percent error with respect to subject-reported wear time. Method 1 filtered temperatures, classifying the range of 28.4 to 35.2°C as wear. Method 2 utilised examiners interpreting temperature versus time plots. Separate analysis of periods of reported outdoor wear was performed to identify the percentage of time examiners correctly identified wear. Group mean ON temperatures did not differ between sites (p = 0.72), but group mean OFF temperatures were significantly warmer in Houston (Houston: 24.7 ± 2.0°C, Columbus: 20.3 ± 2.1°C; p < 0.0001). Median percent error of the filtering technique to approximate subject reported wear time was 4 per cent for Houston and -8 per cent for Columbus. Median percent error for examiner 1: Houston 1 per cent, Columbus 0 per cent; median percent error for examiner 2: Houston 3 per cent, Columbus 0 per cent. Houston outdoor wear was correctly identified 88 and 97 per cent of the time by the examiners versus 79 and 81 per cent for Columbus. Despite environmental temperature differences, measured temperatures during spectacle wear were similar across subjects and median percent error was less than 10 per cent for both wear time approximation methods. The device studied was effective for objectively monitoring spectacle wear in both warm and cold climates with the caveat that subjects spent the majority of time indoors.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
This study investigates the utility of a temperature sensor data logger to monitor spectacle compliance for future application in research and clinical settings. Specifically, the question of whether warm versus cold climates negatively impact accuracy of the sensor to monitor spectacle wear is investigated.
METHODS
Fifty adults from Houston, Texas (summer) and 40 adults from Columbus, Ohio (winter) wore a thermosensor on their spectacles for one week while keeping wear-time logs. Temperatures during reported spectacle wear (ON) were compared to temperatures during non-wear (OFF) between sites. Two methods to approximate wear time were evaluated by percent error with respect to subject-reported wear time. Method 1 filtered temperatures, classifying the range of 28.4 to 35.2°C as wear. Method 2 utilised examiners interpreting temperature versus time plots. Separate analysis of periods of reported outdoor wear was performed to identify the percentage of time examiners correctly identified wear.
RESULTS
Group mean ON temperatures did not differ between sites (p = 0.72), but group mean OFF temperatures were significantly warmer in Houston (Houston: 24.7 ± 2.0°C, Columbus: 20.3 ± 2.1°C; p < 0.0001). Median percent error of the filtering technique to approximate subject reported wear time was 4 per cent for Houston and -8 per cent for Columbus. Median percent error for examiner 1: Houston 1 per cent, Columbus 0 per cent; median percent error for examiner 2: Houston 3 per cent, Columbus 0 per cent. Houston outdoor wear was correctly identified 88 and 97 per cent of the time by the examiners versus 79 and 81 per cent for Columbus.
CONCLUSION
Despite environmental temperature differences, measured temperatures during spectacle wear were similar across subjects and median percent error was less than 10 per cent for both wear time approximation methods. The device studied was effective for objectively monitoring spectacle wear in both warm and cold climates with the caveat that subjects spent the majority of time indoors.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30282118
doi: 10.1111/cxo.12843
pmc: PMC6389398
mid: NIHMS988646
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
147-153Subventions
Organisme : NEI NIH HHS
ID : P30 EY007551
Pays : United States
Organisme : NEI NIH HHS
ID : R01 EY024590
Pays : United States
Organisme : NEI NIH HHS
ID : T35 EY007088
Pays : United States
Organisme : NEI NIH HHS
ID : K23 EY025273
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2018 Optometry Australia.
Références
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2018 Jan;38(1):37-47
pubmed: 29119579
BMJ. 2007 Oct 6;335(7622):707
pubmed: 17855283
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2003 Mar;241(3):176-80
pubmed: 12644939
Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2016 Aug 15;3:158-166
pubmed: 27981259
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004 Sep;45(9):3048-54
pubmed: 15326120
Acta Ophthalmol. 2016 Dec;94(8):e753-e756
pubmed: 27350046
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016 Dec 1;134(12):1347-1353
pubmed: 27737444
Acta Ophthalmol. 2013 Dec;91(8):e635-40
pubmed: 23759025
Strabismus. 2006 Jun;14(2):65-70
pubmed: 16760110