nach oben

Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology

Erschienen in:

22.08.2023 | Miscellaneous

Effect of different screen brightness and devices on online visual acuity test

verfasst von: Lu Cheng, Shi Peng, Hua Hao, Dan Ye, Liya Xu, Yajing Zuo, Jingjing Huang

Erschienen in: Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology | Ausgabe 2/2024

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to study the difference in test results of online visual acuity (VA) test under different devices and screen brightness conditions and to compare online VA test with Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS).

Methods

Healthy volunteers with the best corrected VA of 0.0 LogMAR or higher were recruited. VAs under ETDRS were tested first, and then online VA test (the Stanford Acuity Test, StAT) visual acuities using iPad Air2 and Microsoft Surface pro4 under 50% and 100% screen brightness were performed. The VA results and the testing times were compared between different devices and screen brightness conditions.

Results

A total of 101 eyes were included in this study. The VA results measured by the StAT were better than those of ETDRS. The VA results measured at 100% screen brightness were better than those of 50% brightness (mean difference, 0.013 logMAR at most, less than 1 letter); the VA results measured by iPad Air2 were better than those of Surface pro4 (mean difference, −0.009 logMAR at most, less than 1 letter). Significantly less time was spent on VA testing under StAT than that under ETDRS.

Conclusion

The impact of screen brightness and the device on the VA results generated by online VA tests was clinically insignificant. In addition, online VA tests are found to be reliable and more time efficient than ETDRS.

Habtamu E, Bastawrous A, Bolster NM et al (2019) Development and validation of a smartphone-based contrast sensitivity test. Transl Vis Sci Technol 8:2–11. https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.8.5.13CrossRef

Wang X, Lamoureux E, Zheng Y et al (2014) Health burden associated with visual impairment in Singapore: the Singapore epidemiology of eye disease study. Ophthalmology 121:1837–1842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.03.017CrossRefPubMed

Ou WC, Lesmes LA, Christie AH et al (2021) Normal- and low-luminance automated quantitative contrast sensitivity assessment in eyes with age-related macular degeneration. Am J Ophthalmol 226:148–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2021.01.017CrossRefPubMed

Ritchie A, Atamian S, Shah N et al (2021) Can visual acuity be reliably measured at home? Validation of telemedicine remote computerised visual acuity measurements. Br Irish Orthop J 17:119–126. https://doi.org/10.22599/bioj.179CrossRef

Bailey IL, Lovie JE (1976) New design principles for visual acuity letter charts. Optom Vis Sci 53:740–745. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-197611000-00006CrossRef

Mathew JA, Shah SA, Simon JW (2011) Varying difficulty of Snellen letters and common errors in amblyopic and fellow eyes. Arch Ophthalmol 129:184–187. https://doi.org/10.1001/archophthalmol.2010.369CrossRefPubMed

Chen AH, Norazman F, Buari N (2012) Comparison of visual acuity estimates using three different letter charts under two ambient room illuminations. Indian J Ophthalmol 60:101–104. https://doi.org/10.4103/0301-4738.90489CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Told R, Baratsits M, Garhöfer G, Schmetterer L (2013) ETDRS (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study)-Visus. Ophthalmologe 110:960–965. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00347-013-2813-2CrossRefPubMed

Koenig S, Tonagel F, Schiefer U et al (2014) Assessing visual acuity across five disease types: ETDRS charts are faster with clinical outcome comparable to Landolt Cs. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 252:1093–1099. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-014-2670-yCrossRef

10.

Pang Y, Sparschu L, Nylin E (2020) Validation of an automated-ETDRS near and intermediate visual acuity measurement. Clin Exp Optom 103:663–667. https://doi.org/10.1111/cxo.13018CrossRefPubMed

11.

Gower EW, Silverman E, Cassard SD et al (2013) Barriers to attending an eye examination after vision screening referral within a vulnerable population. J Health Care Poor Underserved 24:1042–1052. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2013.0134CrossRefPubMed

12.

Anjou MD, Boudville AI, Taylor HR (2013) Correcting Indigenous Australians’ refractive error and presbyopia. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 41:320–328. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9071.2012.02886.xCrossRefPubMed

13.

Burke BL, Hall RW, Dehnel PJ et al (2015) Telemedicine: pediatric applications. Pediatrics 136:e293–e308. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-1517CrossRefPubMed

14.

Dai M, Xu J, Lin J et al (2017) Willingness to use mobile health in glaucoma patients. Telemed e-Health 23:822–827. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2016.0254CrossRef

15.

Ferris FL, Bailey I (1996) Standardizing the measurement of visual acuity for clinical research studies: guidelines from the Eye Care Technology Forum. Ophthalmology 103:181–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0161-6420(96)30742-2CrossRefPubMed

16.

Pathipati AS, Wood EH, Lam CK et al (2016) Visual acuity measured with a smartphone app is more accurate than Snellen testing by emergency department providers. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 254:1175–1180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-016-3291-4CrossRef

17.

Haupt PS (2008) Visual acuity testing in the emergency department: education and competency for emergency nurses. J Emerg Nurs 34:233–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jen.2007.09.001CrossRefPubMed

18.

Stewart C, Coffey-Sandoval J, Souverein EA et al (2022) Provider-to-provider synchronous telemedical consultations in ophthalmology: advice for implementation. Digit Health 8:20552076221117744. https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076221117744CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Mahajan V, Singh T, Azad C (2020) Using telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. Indian Pediatr 57:652–657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13312-020-1894-7CrossRefPubMed

20.

Liao CT, Chang WT, Yu WL, Toh HS (2020) Utility of telemedicine in the COVID-19 era. Rev Cardiovasc Med 21:583. https://doi.org/10.31083/j.rcm.2020.04.188CrossRef

21.

Lukas H, Xu C, Yu Y, Gao W (2020) Emerging telemedicine tools for remote COVID-19 diagnosis, monitoring, and management. ACS Nano 14:16180–16193. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.0c08494CrossRefPubMed

22.

Bokolo A Jr (2020) Use of telemedicine and virtual care for remote treatment in response to COVID-19 pandemic. J Med Syst 44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-020-01596-5

23.

Ohannessian R, Duong TA, Odone A (2020) Global telemedicine implementation and integration within health systems to fight the COVID-19 pandemic: a call to action. JMIR Public Health Surveill 6:e18810. https://doi.org/10.2196/18810CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Aslam TM, Parry NRA, Murray IJ et al (2016) Development and testing of an automated computer tablet-based method for self-testing of high and low contrast near visual acuity in ophthalmic patients. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 254:891–899. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-016-3293-2CrossRef

25.

Aslam TM, Tahir HJ, Parry NRA et al (2016) Automated measurement of visual acuity in pediatric ophthalmic patients using principles of game design and tablet computers. Am J Ophthalmol 170:223–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2016.08.013CrossRefPubMed

26.

Bastawrous A, Rono HK, Livingstone IAT et al (2015) Development and validation of a smartphone-based visual acuity test (peek acuity) for clinical practice and community-based fieldwork. JAMA Ophthalmol 133:930–937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yoph.2016.02.028CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Black JM, Jacobs RJ, Phillips G et al (2013) An assessment of the iPad as a testing platform for distance visual acuity in adults. BMJ Open 3:5–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002730CrossRef

28.

Bokinni Y, Shah N, Maguire O, Laidlaw DAH (2015) Performance of a computerised visual acuity measurement device in subjects with age-related macular degeneration: Comparison with gold standard ETDRS chart measurements. Eye (Basingstoke) 29:1085–1091. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2015.94CrossRef

29.

Faria BM, Duman F, Zheng CX et al (2015) Evaluating contrast sensitivity in age-related macular degeneration using a novel computer-based test, the spaeth/richman contrast sensitivity test. Retina 35:1465–1473. https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0000000000000474CrossRefPubMed

30.

Kollbaum PS, Jansen ME, Kollbaum EJ, Bullimore MA (2014) Validation of an iPad test of letter contrast sensitivity. Optom Vis Sci 91:291–296. https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000000158CrossRefPubMed

31.

Liu JL, Jason McAnany J, Wilensky JT et al (2017) M&S Smart System contrast sensitivity measurements compared with standard visual function measurements in primary open-angle glaucoma patients. J Glaucoma 26:528–533. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000000659CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Lodhia V, Karanja S, Lees S, Bastawrous A (2016) Acceptability, usability, and views on deployment of peek, a mobile phone mhealth intervention for eye care in Kenya: qualitative study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 4:e30. https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.4746CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Pang Y, Sparschu L, Wang J (2021) Repeatability of an automated ETDRS contrast threshold measurement. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 41:896–899. https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.12829CrossRefPubMed

34.

Wisse RPL, Muijzer MB, Cassano F et al (2019) Validation of an independent web-based tool for measuring visual acuity and refractive error (the manifest versus online refractive evaluation trial): prospective open-label noninferiority clinical trial. J Med Internet Res 21:e14808. https://doi.org/10.2196/14808CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Zhang Z-T, Zhang S-C, Huang X-G, Liang L-Y (2013) A pilot trial of the iPad tablet computer as a portable device for visual acuity testing. J Telemed Telecare 19:55–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X12474964ADSCrossRefPubMed

36.

Brady CJ, Eghrari AO, Labrique AB (2015) Smartphone-based visual acuity measurement for screening and clinical assessment. JAMA 314:2682–2683CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Han X, Scheetz J, Keel S et al (2019) Development and validation of a smartphone-based visual acuity test (vision at home). Transl Vis Sci Technol 8. https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.8.4.27

38.

Perera C, Chakrabarti R, Islam FMA, Crowston J (2015) The Eye Phone Study: reliability and accuracy of assessing Snellen visual acuity using smartphone technology. Eye (Basingstoke) 29:888–894. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2015.60CrossRef

39.

Piech C, Malik A, Scott LM et al (2020) The stanford acuity test: a precise vision test using Bayesian techniques and a discovery in human visual response. Proc AAAI Conf Artif Intell 34:471–479. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v34i01.5384CrossRef

40.

Wang M (2020) Eye, robot: artificial intelligence dramatically improves accuracy of classic eye exam. Science 1979:6–10. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc4226CrossRef

41.

Bellsmith KN, Gale MJ, Yang S et al (2022) Validation of home visual acuity tests for telehealth in the COVID-19 era. JAMA Ophthalmol 140:465. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2022.0396CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

42.

Virgili G, Acosta R, Bentley SA et al (2018) Reading aids for adults with low vision. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003303.pub4

43.

Kakkos SK, Nicolaides AN, Geroulakos G et al (2011) Effect of computer monitor brightness on visual (subjective) carotid plaque characterization. J Clin Ultrasound 39:497–501. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcu.20871CrossRefPubMed

44.

Pan J, Sheu J, Massimo L et al (2021) Learning experience design in health professions education: a conceptual review of evidence for educators. AEM Educ Train 5. https://doi.org/10.1002/aet2.10505

45.

Shantakumari N, Eldeeb R, Sreedharan J, Gopal K (2014) Computer use and vision-related problems among university students in Ajman, United Arab Emirate. Ann Med Health Sci Res 4:258. https://doi.org/10.4103/2141-9248.129058CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

46.

Kozeis N (2009) Impact of computer use on children’s vision. Hippokratia 13:230–231PubMedPubMedCentral

47.

Danilova MV, Bondarko VM (2007) Foveal contour interactions and crowding effects at the resolution limit of the visual system. J Vis 7:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1167/7.2.25CrossRef

48.

Rono HK, Bastawrous A, Macleod D et al (2018) Smartphone-based screening for visual impairment in Kenyan school children: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet Glob Health 6:e924–e932. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30244-4CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

49.

Wang T, Huang PJ, Chen C et al (2021) A comparison of visual acuity measured by ETDRS chart and standard logarithmic visual acuity chart among outpatients. Int J Ophthalmol 14:536–540. https://doi.org/10.18240/ijo.2021.04.09CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Effect of different screen brightness and devices on online visual acuity test
verfasst von: Lu Cheng
Shi Peng
Hua Hao
Dan Ye
Liya Xu
Yajing Zuo
Jingjing Huang
Publikationsdatum: 22.08.2023
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology / Ausgabe 2/2024
Print ISSN: 0721-832X
Elektronische ISSN: 1435-702X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-023-06206-x

Neu im Fachgebiet Augenheilkunde

Metastase in der periokulären Region

Metastasen Leitthema

Orbitale und periokuläre metastatische Tumoren galten früher als sehr selten. Aber mit der ständigen Aktualisierung von Medikamenten und Nachweismethoden für die Krebsbehandlung werden neue Chemotherapien und Strahlenbehandlungen eingesetzt. Die …

Staging und Systemtherapie bei okulären und periokulären Metastasen

Metastasen Leitthema

Metastasen bösartiger Erkrankungen sind die häufigsten Tumoren, die im Auge diagnostiziert werden. Sie treten bei ungefähr 5–10 % der Patienten mit soliden Tumoren im Verlauf der Erkrankung auf. Besonders häufig sind diese beim Mammakarzinom und …

Wundheilung nach Trabekulektomie

Trabekulektomie CME-Artikel

Die überschießende Wundheilung in der filtrierenden Glaukomchirurgie ist ein zentraler Faktor für ein operatives Versagen. Nach der Einführung der Trabekulektomie in den 1960er-Jahren wurden viele Faktoren erkannt, die mit einer vermehrten …

„standard operating procedures“ (SOP) – Vorschlag zum therapeutischen Management bei periokulären sowie intraokulären Metastasen

Metastasen Leitthema

Peri- sowie intraokuläre Metastasen sind insgesamt gesehen selten und meist Zeichen einer fortgeschrittenen primären Tumorerkrankung. Die Therapie ist daher zumeist palliativ und selten kurativ. Zudem ist die Therapiefindung sehr individuell. Die …

Update Augenheilkunde

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2024

Continuous glucose monitoring metrics following sub-Tenon’s injection of triamcinolone acetonide for diabetic macular edema

Effects of grating stimulation on vision in individuals with amblyopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Increasing hospitalisation of patients with herpes zoster ophthalmicus—an interdisciplinary retrospective analysis

Comparison of functional and morphologic changes between brolucizumab and faricimab in neovascular age-related macular degeneration

Biomarkers determining treatment interval of diabetic macular edema after initial resolution by anti-vascular endothelial growth factor

Ocular drug delivery systems: glaucoma patient perceptions from a German university hospital eye clinic

Neu im Fachgebiet Augenheilkunde

Metastase in der periokulären Region

Staging und Systemtherapie bei okulären und periokulären Metastasen

Wundheilung nach Trabekulektomie

„standard operating procedures“ (SOP) – Vorschlag zum therapeutischen Management bei periokulären sowie intraokulären Metastasen

Update Augenheilkunde