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

Figure 1A.. Scatter Plot for Distance Visual…
Figure 1A.. Scatter Plot for Distance Visual Acuity
Note: Dashed line= fitted values; Solid line= true
Figure 1B.. Scatter Plot for Contrast Sensitivity
Figure 1B.. Scatter Plot for Contrast Sensitivity
Note: Dashed line= fitted values; Solid line= true
Figure 1C.. Scatter Plot for Near Acuity
Figure 1C.. Scatter Plot for Near Acuity
Note: Dashed line= fitted values; Solid line= true
Figure 2A.. Bland Altman Plot for Distance…
Figure 2A.. Bland Altman Plot for Distance Visual Acuity
ETDRS= Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Note: Dashed line= 95% limits of agreement; Solid line= mean
Figure 2B.. Bland Altman Plot for Contrast…
Figure 2B.. Bland Altman Plot for Contrast Sensitivity
Note: Dashed line= 95% limits of agreement; Solid line= mean
Figure 2C.. Bland Altman Plot for Near…
Figure 2C.. Bland Altman Plot for Near acuity
Note: Dashed line= 95% limits of agreement; Solid line= mean

References

    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    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. 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. Berger E The iPad: gadget or medical godsend? Ann Emerg Med. 2010;56:A21–A22.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. Kollbaum PS, Jansen ME, Kollbaum EJ, et al. Validation of an iPad test of letter contrast sensitivity. Optom Vis Sci. 2014;91:291–296.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. Giavarina D Understanding bland altman analysis. Biochemia medica: Biochemia medica. 2015;25:141–151.
    1. 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.
    1. 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

Подписаться