Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Montrer: 20 | 50 | 100
Résultats 1 - 1 de 1
Filtre
Ajouter des filtres








Gamme d'année
1.
Philippine Journal of Ophthalmology ; : 88-92, 2015.
Article Dans Anglais | WPRIM | ID: wpr-633172

Résumé

@#<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>OBJECTIVE:</strong> To determine if the portable iPad 3rd generation device with an anti-glare screen protector and installed with the 2020 Duo FLEX visual acuity can be used as an alternative method of distance acuity testing and to compare it with a standard ETDRS visual acuity chart.<br /><br /><strong>METHODS:</strong> Healthy volunteers with or without spectacle correction were selected and underwent visual acuity testing with an iPad 3 device and a standard ETDRS chart. The iPad 3 was fitted with an anti-glare matte screen protector and installed with the 2020 Duo FLEX visual acuity chart. The subjects read the optotypes in the standard ETDRS chart and the iPad 3 at distances of 4 and 2 meters. Visual acuity results were computed and recorded as logMAR units. Mean differences between the 2 devices were compared using paired t-test.<br /><br /><strong>RESULTS:</strong> A total of 46 healthy subjects (92 eyes), mean age of 24 years, had mean logMAR scores at 4 meters of 0.165 and 0.093 for the ETDRS chart and iPad 3 respectively (p<0.001). The mean logMAR scores at 2 meters were -0.049 and -0.089 respectively (p=0.016).<br /><br /><strong>CONCLUSION:</strong> Distance visual acuity testing using the iPad 3 device with high resolution screen equipped with anti-glare screen protector was significantly different from the standard ETDRS chart. Before tablet devices can be used to test visual acuity clinically, they should be standardized and tested.</p>


Sujets)
Humains , Mâle , Femelle , Adulte , Lunettes correctrices , Lumière éblouissante , Volontaires sains , Tests de vision , Acuité visuelle , Oeil
SÉLECTION CITATIONS
Détails de la recherche