Development and Validation of a Smartphone-Based Visual Acuity Test (Vision at Home)

Xiaotong Han, Jane Scheetz, Stuart Keel, Chimei Liao, Chi Liu, Yu Jiang, Andreas Müller, Wei Meng, Mingguang He, Xiaotong Han, Jane Scheetz, Stuart Keel, Chimei Liao, Chi Liu, Yu Jiang, Andreas Müller, Wei Meng, Mingguang He

Abstract

Purpose: To describe the development and validation of a smartphone-based visual acuity (VA) test called Vision at home (V@home).

Methods: Three study populations (elderly Chinese, adolescent Chinese, and Australian groups) underwent distance and near VA testing using standard Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) charts and the V@home device; all VA tests used tumbling E optotypes. VA tests were repeated with one eye, selected randomly. Distance VA was measured monocularly at 2 m, and near VA was measured binocularly at 40 cm. Participants also completed a questionnaire about their satisfaction with the device. V@home VA (logMAR) was compared to VA for ETDRS charts at distance and near and test-retest reliability.

Results: The mean difference between V@home and ETDRS distance VA across all groups ranged from -0.010 to -0.100 logMAR. Tolerant weighted kappa (TWK) agreement ranged from substantial (0.742) in the Australian group to almost perfect (0.950) in the adolescent Chinese group. There was high agreement of V@home with near ETDRS VA across all groups, with a mean difference of -0.092 to -0.042 logMAR and a TWK of 0.736 to 0.837. Test-retest reliability was also high (difference: -0.018 to 0.026) for both distance and near VA tests (95% limits of agreement: -0.289 to 0.258 for distance and -0.235 to 0.199 for near). The majority of participants were satisfied with V@home.

Conclusions: V@home could accurately and reliably measure both distance and near VA and is well accepted by participants.

Translational relevance: The V@home system could potentially serve as a useful tool to improve eye care accessibility, especially in underdeveloped areas with limited eye care personnel and resources.

Keywords: ETDRS; development; smartphone-based; visual acuity test.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Bland Altman plot of VA measurements by the ETDRS and V@home method in three different populations. The three columns, from left to right, indicate distance VA in the right eye, distance VA in the left eye, and binocular near VA, respectively. The three rows, from top to bottom, indicate the elderly group, the adolescent group, and the Australian group, respectively. The black dashed line represents the bias, the gray dashed line represents the 95% CI of bias, and the red dashed line represents the 95% CI of difference in VA measurements.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Participants' feedback on V@home based on questionnaire interview. The three columns, from left to right, indicate the answer distribution for question 1 (overall, how satisfied are you with the V@home testing system?), question 2 (how likely would you be to use this system again), and question 3 (would you recommend the V@home system to a friend?), respectively. The three rows, from top to bottom, indicate the elderly group, the adolescent group, and the Australian group, respectively.

References

    1. Eckert KA, Carter MJ, Lansingh VC, et al. A simple method for estimating the economic cost of productivity loss due to blindness and moderate to severe visual impairment. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2015;22:349–355.
    1. Crews JE, Chou C-F, Zhang X, Zack MM, Saaddine JB. Health-related quality of life among people aged ≥65 years with self-reported visual impairment: Findings from the 2006–2010 behavioral risk factor surveillance system. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2014;21:287–296.
    1. Zheng DD, Christ SL, Lam BL, Arheart KL, Galor A, Lee DJ. Increased mortality risk among the visually impaired: the roles of mental well-being and preventive care practices. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:2685–2692.
    1. Bourne RR, Flaxman SR, Braithwaite T, et al. Magnitude, temporal trends, and projections of the global prevalence of blindness and distance and near vision impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2017;5:e888–e897.
    1. Evans BJ, Rowlands G. Correctable visual impairment in older people: a major unmet need. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2004;24:161–180.
    1. Armstrong KL, Jovic M, Vo-Phuoc JL, Thorpe JG, Doolan BL. The global cost of eliminating avoidable blindness. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2012;60:475–480.
    1. Levenson JH, Kozarsky A. Visual acuity. In: HK Walker, WD Hall, Hurst JW., editors. Clinical Methods: The History, Physical, and Laboratory Examinations 3rd ed. Boston: Butterworths;; 1990.
    1. Kniestedt C, Stamper RL. Visual acuity and its measurement. Ophthalmol Clin North Am. 2003;16:155–170. v.
    1. Mercado CL, Doroslovački P, Wang J, Siddiqui AA, Kolker AF, Kolker RJ. Comparison of distance and near visual acuity in patients with vision loss due to cataract. Int Ophthalmol. 2017;37:169–172.
    1. Wolffsohn JS, Eperjesi F. The effect of relative distance enlargement on visual acuity in the visually impaired. Clin Exp Optom. 2005;88:97–102.
    1. Hetherington R. The Shellen chart as a test of visual acuity. Psychol Forsch. 1954;24:349–357.
    1. Elliott DB, Sheridan M. The use of accurate visual acuity measurements in clinical anti-cataract formulation trials. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1988;8:397–401.
    1. Ferris FL, III, Kassoff A, Bresnick GH, Bailey I. New visual acuity charts for clinical research. Am J Ophthalmol. 1982;94:91–96.
    1. Brady CJ, Eghrari AO, Labrique AB. Smartphone-based visual acuity measurement for screening and clinical assessment. JAMA. 2015;314:2682–2683.
    1. Anjou MD, Boudville AI, Taylor HR. Correcting indigenous Australians' refractive error and presbyopia. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2013;41:320–328.
    1. Gower EW, Silverman E, Cassard SD, Williams SK, Baldonado K, Friedman DS. Barriers to attending an eye examination after vision screening referral within a vulnerable population. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2013;24:1042–1052.
    1. Free C, Phillips G, Watson L, et al. The effectiveness of mobile-health technologies to improve health care service delivery processes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2013;10:e1001363.
    1. Mosa ASM, Yoo I, Sheets L. A systematic review of healthcare applications for smartphones. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012;12:67.
    1. Tofigh S, Shortridge E, Elkeeb A, Godley B. Effectiveness of a smartphone application for testing near visual acuity. Eye. 2015;29:1464.
    1. Pathipati AS, Wood EH, Lam CK, Sáles CS, Moshfeghi DM. Visual acuity measured with a smartphone app is more accurate than Snellen testing by emergency department providers. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2016;254:1175–1180.
    1. Perera C, Chakrabarti R, Islam F, Crowston J. The Eye Phone Study: reliability and accuracy of assessing Snellen visual acuity using smartphone technology. Eye. 2015;29:888.
    1. Z-t Zhang, S-c Zhang. Huang X-g, Liang L-y. A pilot trial of the iPad tablet computer as a portable device for visual acuity testing. J Telemed Telecare. 2013;19:55–59.
    1. Black J, Jacobs R, Phillips G, et al. An assessment of the iPad as a testing platform for distance visual acuity in adults. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e002730.
    1. Gounder PA, Cole E, Colley S, Hille DM. Validation of a portable electronic visual acuity system. J Mob Technol Med. 2014;3:35–39.
    1. Toy BC, Myung DJ, He L, et al. Smartphone-based dilated fundus photography and near visual acuity testing as inexpensive screening tools to detect referral warranted diabetic eye disease. Retina. 2016;36:1000–1008.
    1. Bastawrous A, Rono HK, Livingstone IA, et al. 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.
    1. Han X, Ellwein LB, Guo X, Hu Y, Yan W, He M. Progression of near vision loss and incidence of near vision impairment in an adult Chinese population. Ophthalmology. 2017;124:734–742.
    1. Zheng Y, Ding X, Chen Y, He M. The Guangzhou Twin Project: an update. Twin Res Hum Genet. 2013;16:73–78.
    1. Treacy MP, Hurst TP, Conway M, et al. The early treatment in diabetic retinopathy study chart compared with the tumbling-E and Landolt-C. Ophthalmology. 2015;122:1062–1063.e1061.
    1. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307–310.
    1. Cohen J. Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull. 1968;70:213–220.
    1. Deloitte. Mobile consumer survey 2017: The Australian cut. 2017 Retrieved from Accessed December 5, 2018.
    1. Horton JC, Jones MR. Warning on inaccurate Rosenbaum cards for testing near vision. Surv Ophthalmol. 1997;42:169–174.
    1. Bert F, Giacometti M, Gualano MR, Siliquini R. Smartphones and health promotion: a review of the evidence. J Med Syst. 2014;38:9995.
    1. Bastawrous A, Armstrong MJ. Mobile health use in low- and high-income countries: an overview of the peer-reviewed literature. J R Soc Med. 2013;106:130–142.
    1. Holden BA, Fricke TR, Wilson DA, et al. Global prevalence of myopia and high myopia and temporal trends from 2000 through 2050. Ophthalmology. 2016;123:1036–1042.
    1. Fehlings MG, Tetreault L, Nater A, et al. The aging of the global population: the changing epidemiology of disease and spinal disorders. Neurosurgery. 2015;77(suppl 4):S1–5.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner