Suppr超能文献

一项评估两种新视力测试在低视力患者中可用性的随机交叉研究。

A Randomized Crossover Study to Assess the Usability of Two New Vision Tests in Patients with Low Vision.

作者信息

Jolly Jasleen K, Gray Joanna M, Salvetti Anna Paola, Han Ruofan C, MacLaren Robert E

机构信息

Nuffield Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford Eye Hospital, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom *

出版信息

Optom Vis Sci. 2019 Jun;96(6):443-452. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000001380.

Abstract

SIGNIFICANCE

Well-established charts such as Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study are able to quantify visual acuity (VA) with a low cutoff of 1.6 logMAR. Below this point, nonquantitative measures, such as count fingers, hand movements, and light perception, are used. There is a need for more reproducible, comparable, and reliable ways to measure VA changes in this patient cohort.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to examine and compare the ability of the Berkeley Rudimentary Vision Test (BRVT) and the Freiburg Acuity Test (FrACT) to quantify VA in low-vision patients who score nonnumerical VAs in standard charts.

METHODS

Fifty adult participants with VA ≤1.0 logMAR in both eyes were recruited from the Oxford Eye Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom. Correlation between FrACT and BRVT results and the correlation between VA and daily living activities were analyzed statistically. Potential predictors of differences were investigated.

RESULTS

The BRVT was significantly faster to conduct (P = .002), but FrACT was able to quantify vision numerically in a greater proportion of eyes. The κ agreement between tests was 0.26. The difference increased systematically with the VA reduction (P < .0001). The Bland-Altman analysis showed a skew to measurement of lower logMAR VA indicating better vision measured on the FrACT. The only significant predictor of difference between the tests was binocular VA (coefficient, -0.445; P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Both tests are suitable for a very low-vision population. The BRVT is a faster test to administer, but FrACT provides a numerical result in more eyes. The poor intertest repeatability indicates that they cannot be used interchangeably. The BRVT generally reported poorer vision than did the FrACT. The medium of presentation, such as a computer screen or externally lit print medium, is likely to be the biggest factor in these differences and warrants further investigation.

摘要

意义

诸如糖尿病视网膜病变早期治疗研究等成熟的图表能够以1.6 logMAR的低截断值来量化视力(VA)。低于这一点,则使用非定量测量方法,如数手指、手动和光感。需要有更可重复、可比且可靠的方法来测量该患者群体的视力变化。

目的

本研究的目的是检验和比较伯克利基本视力测试(BRVT)和弗莱堡视力测试(FrACT)在标准图表中视力评分为非数值的低视力患者中量化视力的能力。

方法

从英国牛津的牛津眼科医院招募了50名双眼视力≤1.0 logMAR的成年参与者。对FrACT和BRVT结果之间的相关性以及视力与日常生活活动之间的相关性进行了统计分析。研究了差异的潜在预测因素。

结果

BRVT的实施速度明显更快(P = .002),但FrACT能够以数字方式量化更大比例眼睛的视力。测试之间的κ一致性为0.26。差异随着视力降低而系统性增加(P < .0001)。布兰德 - 奥特曼分析显示对数视力较低时测量存在偏差,表明FrACT测量的视力更好。测试之间差异的唯一显著预测因素是双眼视力(系数,-0.445;P = .001)。

结论

两种测试都适用于极低视力人群。BRVT是一种实施更快的测试,但FrACT能在更多眼睛中提供数值结果。测试间重复性差表明它们不能互换使用。BRVT通常报告的视力比FrACT差。呈现媒介,如电脑屏幕或外部照明印刷媒介,可能是这些差异的最大因素,值得进一步研究。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验