Department of Dermatology, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California.
School of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California.
Lasers Surg Med. 2021 Jan;53(1):148-153. doi: 10.1002/lsm.23352. Epub 2020 Nov 8.
To demonstrate that high color fidelity light-emitting diode (LED) sources are preferred by dermatologists for the evaluation of patients during standard-of-care, outpatient visits when compared to low color fidelity LED sources similar to fluorescent lighting.
STUDY DESIGN/MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three different LED sources were installed in exam rooms at a single, academic, medical institution (low color fidelity [82 color rendering index (CRI)] similar to fluorescent lighting, and high color fidelity [97 CRI and 96+red CRI]). A cross-sectional survey study was conducted in three parts. Naturalness (i.e. ability to reproduce natural, daylight conditions), effectiveness, color contrast, comfort, and overall performance of each LED source were rated on a 5-point scale from 0 to 4 with 0 being the worse, and 4 being the best. The first part included a survey of board-certified dermatologists (n = 3) assessing their visual experience while clinically evaluating a subset of patients during standard-of-care outpatient visits. The second survey was completed by dermatologic medical providers (n = 55) at three separate monthly departmental Grand Rounds sessions in which standardized patients were evaluated with the LED sources. Lastly, patients (n = 75) finished a survey assessing the comfort level of the LED sources.
In the first part of the study, all dermatologists significantly preferred the high color fidelity sources over low color fidelity sources based on all five evaluation criteria, with two preferring the 97 CRI LED source overall, while the third dermatologist favored 96+red CRI. Assessments provided by the 55 participants at Grand Rounds demonstrated that the 97 CRI was most "liked." Patients also preferred the high color fidelity LED source, reporting the 96+red CRI source was the "most comfortable."
Dermatologists, dermatologists-in-training and mid-level providers significantly prefer high color fidelity LED sources for outpatient evaluation of dermatologist patients in enclosed spaces, rating them the more natural, effective, comfortable, and providing superior color contrast than low color sources. Patients also favor high color fidelity LED sources as being the most comfortable in the clinic room. Lasers Surg. Med. © 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
相较于类似荧光灯的低色彩保真度 LED 光源,演示证明在标准护理、门诊就诊期间,皮肤科医生更倾向于使用高色彩保真度(显色指数[CRI]为 97)的 LED 光源来评估患者。
研究设计/材料和方法:在一家学术医疗机构的单独诊室中安装了三种不同的 LED 光源(低色彩保真度[CRI 为 82],类似于荧光灯,以及高色彩保真度[CRI 为 97 和 96+红色 CRI])。这项横截面研究分三个部分进行。对每个 LED 光源的自然度(即再现自然光、日光条件的能力)、有效性、颜色对比度、舒适度和整体性能进行 5 分制评分(0-4 分,0 表示最差,4 表示最好)。第一部分包括对 3 名 board-certified 皮肤科医生(Dermatologist)的调查,评估他们在标准护理门诊就诊期间对部分患者进行临床评估时的视觉体验。第二项调查由皮肤科医务人员(n=55)在三次不同的每月部门大查房(Grand Rounds)会议上完成,会议中使用 LED 光源评估标准化患者。最后,患者(n=75)完成了一项评估 LED 光源舒适度的调查。
在研究的第一部分,所有皮肤科医生都基于所有五个评估标准,明显更喜欢高色彩保真度光源而不是低色彩保真度光源,其中两名医生总体上更喜欢 97 CRI LED 光源,而第三名医生则更喜欢 96+红色 CRI。在大查房中,55 名参与者的评估结果表明,97 CRI 最受欢迎。患者也更喜欢高色彩保真度 LED 光源,报告称 96+红色 CRI 光源最舒适。
皮肤科医生、皮肤科医生培训师和中级医务人员在封闭空间中为皮肤科患者进行门诊评估时,明显更喜欢高色彩保真度 LED 光源,认为它们更自然、更有效、更舒适,并提供比低色彩源更好的颜色对比度。患者也更喜欢高色彩保真度 LED 光源,认为它们在诊室中最舒适。激光外科医学。© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.