Evaluation of a visual acuity eHealth tool in patients with cataract.
Journal
Journal of cataract and refractive surgery
ISSN: 1873-4502
Titre abrégé: J Cataract Refract Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8604171
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 03 2023
01 03 2023
Historique:
received:
30
03
2022
accepted:
21
11
2022
pubmed:
3
2
2023
medline:
8
3
2023
entrez:
2
2
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To validate the Easee web-based tool for the assessment of visual acuity in patients who underwent cataract surgery. University Eye Clinic Maastricht, Maastricht, the Netherlands. Prospective method comparison study. Subjects aged between 18 and 69 years who underwent cataract surgery on 1 or both eyes at the Maastricht University Medical Center+ were eligible to participate in this study. The uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) assessments were performed using the web-based tool (index test) and conventional ETDRS and Snellen charts (reference tests). The outcomes of the different tests were expressed in logMAR, and a difference of <0.15 logMAR was considered clinically acceptable. 46 subjects with 75 operated eyes were included in this study. The difference of the UDVA between the web-based tool and ETDRS or Snellen was -0.05 ± 0.10 logMAR ( P < .001 [0.15; -0.26]) and -0.04 ± 0.15 logMAR ( P = .018 [0.24; -0.33]), respectively. For the CDVA, these differences were -0.04 ± 0.08 logMAR ( P < .001 [0.13; -0.21]) and -0.07 ± 0.10 logMAR ( P < .001 [0.13; -0.27]), respectively. The Pearson correlation coefficients between the web-based tool and ETDRS were maximally 0.94 and compared with Snellen 0.92. In total, 73% to 88% of the visual acuity measurement differences were within 0.15 logMAR. The web-based tool was validated for the assessment of visual acuity in patients who underwent cataract surgery and showed clinically acceptable outcomes in up to 88% of patients. Most of the participants had a positive attitude toward the web-based tool, which requires basic digital skills.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36729837
doi: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001108
pii: 02158034-202303000-00011
pmc: PMC9981317
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
278-284Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of ASCRS and ESCRS.
Références
Liu YC, Wilkins M, Kim T, Malyugin B, Mehta JS. Cataracts. Lancet 2017;390:600–612
Behndig A, Cochener B, Güell JL, Kodjikian L, Mencucci R, Nuijts RM, Pleyer U, Rosen P, Szaflik JP, Tassignon MJ. Endophthalmitis prophylaxis in cataract surgery: overview of current practice patterns in 9 European countries. J Cataract Refract Surg 2013;39:1421–1431
Kang S, Thomas PBM, Sim DA, Parker RT, Daniel C, Uddin JM. Oculoplastic video-based telemedicine consultations: COVID-19 and beyond. Eye (Lond) 2020;34:1193–1195
Thompson-Coon J, Abdul-Rahman AK, Whear R, Bethel A, Vaidya B, Gericke CA, Stein K. Telephone consultations in place of face to face out-patient consultations for patients discharged from hospital following surgery: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 2013;13:128
Wisse RPL, Muijzer MB, Cassano F, Godefrooij DA, Prevoo YFDM, Soeters N. Validation of an independent web-based tool for measuring visual acuity and refractive error (the manifest versus online refractive evaluation trial): prospective open-label noninferiority clinical trial. J Med Internet Res 2019;21:e14808
Individuals' level of digital skills. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/isoc_sk_dskl_i/default/table?lang=en . Accessed September 17, 2021
Digital Skills Indicator: derived from Eurostat survey on ICT usage by individuals. Available at: https://eufordigital.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Digital-Skills-Indicator-survey-on-ICT-usage-by-Individuals_Methodological.pdf . Accessed September 17, 2021
McAlinden C, Khadka J, Pesudovs K. Statistical methods for conducting agreement (comparison of clinical tests) and precision (repeatability or reproducibility) studies in optometry and ophthalmology. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2011;31:330–338
Martin Bland J, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;327:307–310
Kaiser PK. Prospective evaluation of visual acuity assessment: a comparison of snellen versus ETDRS charts in clinical practice (an AOS thesis). Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 2009;107:311–324
Siderov J, Tiu AL. Variability of measurements of visual acuity in a large eye clinic. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1999;77:673–676
Rosser DA, Laidlaw DA, Murdoch IE. The development of a “reduced logMAR” visual acuity chart for use in routine clinical practice. Br J Ophthalmol 2001;85:432–436
Patton N, Aslam T, Murray G. Statistical strategies to assess reliability in ophthalmology. Eye (Lond) 2006;20:749–754
Muijzer MB, Claessens JLJ, Cassano F, Godefrooij DA, Prevoo YFDM, Wisse RPL. The evaluation of a web-based tool for measuring the uncorrected visual acuity and refractive error in keratoconus eyes: a method comparison study. PLoS One 2021;16:e0256087
Tiraset N, Poonyathalang A, Padungkiatsagul T, Deeyai M, Vichitkunakorn P, Vanikieti K. Comparison of visual acuity measurement using three methods: standard ETDRS chart, near chart and a smartphone-based eye chart application. Clin Ophthalmol 2021;15:859–869
Bastawrous A, Rono HK, Livingstone IAT, Weiss HA, Jordan S, Kuper H, Burton MJ. Development and validation of a smartphone-based visual acuity test (peek acuity) for clinical practice and community-based fieldwork. JAMA Ophthalmol 2015;133:930–937
Han X, Scheetz J, Keel S, Liao C, Liu C, Jiang Y, Muller A, Meng W, He M. Development and validation of a smartphone-based visual acuity test (vision at home). Transl Vis Sci Technol 2019;8:27
Claessens JLJ, Geuvers JR, Imhof SM, Wisse RPL. Digital tools for the self-assessment of visual acuity: a systematic review. Ophthalmol Ther 2021;10:715–730
Mataftsi A, Koutsimpogeorgos D, Brazitikos P, Ziakas N, Haidich AB. Is conversion of decimal visual acuity measurements to logMAR values reliable? Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2019;257:1513–1517
Vanden Bosch ME, Wall M. Visual acuity scored by the letter-by-letter or probit methods has lower retest variability than the line assignment method. Eye (Lond) 1997;11:411–417
Rohrschneider K, Spittler AR, Bach M. Comparison of visual acuity measurement with Landolt rings versus numbers [in German]. Ophthalmologe 2019;116:1058–1063
Kuo HK, Kuo MT, Tiong IS, Wu PC, Chen YJ, Chen CH. Visual acuity as measured with Landolt C chart and Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2011;249:601–605