Evaluation of Tablet-Based Tests of Visual Acuity and Contrast Sensitivity in Older Adults
Varshini Varadaraj, Lama Assi, Prateek Gajwani, Madison Wahl, Jenina David, Bonnielin K Swenor, Joshua R Ehrlich, Varshini Varadaraj, Lama Assi, Prateek Gajwani, Madison Wahl, Jenina David, Bonnielin K Swenor, Joshua R Ehrlich
Abstract
Purpose: Recent innovations in mobile technology for the measurement of vision present a valuable opportunity to measure visual function in non-clinical settings, such as in the home and in field-based surveys. This study evaluated agreement between a tablet-based measurement of distance and near acuity and contrast sensitivity as compared to gold-standard clinical tests.Methods: Participants aged ≥55 years recruited from a tertiary eye clinic underwent testing with three tablet-based and corresponding gold-standard clinical measures (ETDRS distance acuity, Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity, and MNRead near acuity). Correlation and agreement between tablet-based and clinical tests were assessed.Results: A total of 82 participants with a mean age of 69.1 (SD = 7.6) years, and majority female (67.1%) and white (64.6%), were enrolled in this study. The mean (SD) difference between the tests (gold-standard - tablet) was -0.04 (0.08) logMAR for distance acuity, -0.11 (0.13) log units for contrast sensitivity, and -0.09 (0.12) logMAR for near acuity. 95% limits of agreement for distance acuity (-0.21, 0.12 logMAR), near acuity (-0.34, 0.14 logMAR), and contrast sensitivity (-0.36, 0.14 logCS) were also determined. The correlation between tablet-based and gold-standard tests was strongest for distance acuity (r = 0.78), followed by contrast sensitivity (r = 0.75), and near acuity (r = 0.67). The agreement between the standard and tablet-based methods did not appear to be dependent on the level of vision.Conclusions: This study demonstrates the agreement of tablet-based and gold-standard tests of visual function in older adults. These findings have important implications for future population vision health surveillance and research.
Keywords: Tablet-based vision tests; contrast sensitivity; distance visual acuity; iPad-based vision tests; near acuity.
Figures
References
- Varma R, Vajaranant TS, Burkemper B, et al. Visual impairment and blindness in adults in the United States: demographic and geographic variations from 2015 to 2050. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016;134:802–809.
- West SK, Munoz B, Rubin GS, et al. Function and visual impairment in a population-based study of older adults. The SEE project. Salisbury Eye Evaluation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997;38:72–82.
- Eramudugolla R, Wood J, Anstey KJ. Co-morbidity of depression and anxiety in common age-related eye diseases: a population-based study of 662 adults. Front Aging Neurosci. 2013;5:56.
- Swenor BK, Wang J, Varadaraj V, et al. Vision impairment and cognitive outcomes in older adults: the health ABC study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2019;74:1454–1460.
- Sattarnezhad N, Farrow S, Kimbrough D, et al. Agreement analysis comparing iPad LCVA and Sloan testing in multiple sclerosis patients. Mult Scle J. 2018;24:1126–1130.
- Habtamu E, Bastawrous A, Bolster NM, et al. Development and Validation of a Smartphone-based Contrast Sensitivity Test. Transl Vis Sci Techn. 2019;8:13–13.
- Rono H, Bastawrous A, Macleod D, et al. Peek Community Eye Health-mHealth system to increase access and efficiency of eye health services in Trans Nzoia County, Kenya: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2019;20:502.
- Calabrèse A, To L, He Y, et al. Comparing performance on the MNREAD iPad application with the MNREAD acuity chart. J Vis. 2018;18:8–8.
- 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.
- 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.
- Berger E The iPad: gadget or medical godsend? Ann Emerg Med. 2010;56:A21–A22.
- Dorr M, Lesmes LA, Lu Z-L, et al. Rapid and reliable assessment of the contrast sensitivity function on an iPad. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54:7266–7273.
- Johnson CA, Thapa S, Kong YXG, et al. Performance of an iPad application to detect moderate and advanced visual field loss in Nepal. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017;182:147–154.
- Rodríguez-Vallejo M, Llorens-Quintana C, Furlan WD, et al. Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity screening with a new iPad application. Displays. 2016;44:15–20.
- Kollbaum PS, Jansen ME, Kollbaum EJ, et al. Validation of an iPad test of letter contrast sensitivity. Optom Vis Sci. 2014;91:291–296.
- Reyes-Ortiz CA, Kuo YF, DiNuzzo AR, et al. Near vision impairment predicts cognitive decline: data from the Hispanic Established Populations for Epidemiologic Studies of the Elderly. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53:681–686.
- Keller BK, Morton JL, Thomas VS, et al. The effect of visual and hearing impairments on functional status. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1999;47:1319–1325.
- Klein BE, Moss SE, Klein R, et al. Associations of visual function with physical outcomes and limitations 5 years later in an older population: the Beaver Dam eye study. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:644–650.
- Man REK, Gan ATL, Fenwick EK, et al. Utilizing Uniocular Visual Acuity Substantially Underestimates the Impact of Visual Impairment on Quality of Life Compared to Binocular Visual Acuity. Ophthalmology. 2020.
- Giavarina D Understanding bland altman analysis. Biochemia medica: Biochemia medica. 2015;25:141–151.
- Aslam TM, Parry NR, Murray IJ, et al. Development and testing of an automated computer tablet-based method for self-testing of high and low contrast near visual acuity in ophthalmic patients. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2016;254:891–899.
- Fricke TR, Tahhan N, Resnikoff S, et al. Global prevalence of presbyopia and vision impairment from uncorrected presbyopia: systematic review, meta-analysis, and modelling. Ophthalmology. 2018;125:1492–1499.
Source: PubMed