Clinical validation of a novel web-application for remote assessment of distance visual acuity.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Ophthalmic disorders cause 8% of hospital clinic attendances, the highest of any specialty. The fundamental need for a distance visual acuity (VA) measurement constrains remote consultation. A web-application, DigiVis, facilitates self-assessment of VA using two internet-connected devices. This prospective validation study aimed to establish its accuracy, reliability, usability and acceptability. SUBJECTS/METHODS: In total, 120 patients aged 5-87 years (median = 27) self-tested their vision twice using DigiVis in addition to their standard clinical assessment. Eyes with VA worse than +0.80 logMAR were excluded. Accuracy and test-retest (TRT) variability were compared using Bland-Altman analysis and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Patient feedback was analysed. RESULTS: Bias between VA tests was insignificant at -0.001 (95% CI -0.017 to 0.015) logMAR. The upper limit of agreement (LOA) was 0.173 (95% CI 0.146 to 0.201) and the lower LOA -0.175 (95% CI -0.202 to -0.147) logMAR. The ICC was 0.818 (95% CI 0.748 to 0.869). DigiVis TRT mean bias was similarly insignificant, at 0.001 (95% CI -0.011 to 0.013) logMAR, the upper LOA was 0.124 (95% CI 0.103 to 0.144) and the lower LOA -0.121 (95% CI -0.142 to -0.101) logMAR. The ICC was 0.922 (95% CI 0.887 to 0.946). 95% of subjects were willing to use DigiVis to monitor vision at home. CONCLUSIONS: Self-tested distance VA using DigiVis is accurate, reliable and well accepted by patients. The app has potential to facilitate home monitoring, triage and remote consultation but widescale implementation will require integration with NHS databases and secure patient data storage.

Validation of Home Visual Acuity Tests for Telehealth in the COVID-19 Era.

Importance: Visual acuity (VA) is one of the most important clinical data points in ophthalmology. However, few options for validated at-home VA assessments are currently available. Objective: To validate 3 at-home visual acuity tests in comparison with in-office visual acuity. Design, Setting, and Participants: Between July 2020 and April 2021, eligible participants with VA of 20/200 or better were recruited from 4 university-based ophthalmology clinics (comprehensive, cornea, glaucoma, and retina clinics). Participants were prospectively randomized to self-administer 2 of 3 at-home VA tests (printed chart, mobile phone app, and website) within 3 days before their standard-of-care clinic visit. Participants completed a survey assessing usability of the at-home tests. At the clinic visit, best-corrected Snellen distance acuity was measured as the reference standard. Main Outcomes and Measures: The at-home VA test results were compared with the in-office VA test results using paired and unpaired t tests, Pearson correlation coefficients, analysis of variance, χ2 tests, and Cohen κ agreement. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of each at-home test were calculated to detect significant VA changes (≥0.2 logMAR) from the in-office baseline. Results: A total of 121 participants with a mean (SD) age of 63.8 (13.0) years completed the study. The mean in-office VA was 0.11 logMAR (Snellen equivalent 20/25) with similar numbers of participants from the 4 clinics. Mean difference (logMAR) between the at-home test and in-office acuity was -0.07 (95% CI, -0.10 to -0.04) for the printed chart, -0.12 (95% CI, -0.15 to -0.09) for the mobile phone app, and -0.13 (95% CI, -0.16 to -0.10) for the website test. The Pearson correlation coefficient for the printed chart was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.62-0.79), mobile phone app was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.46-0.69), and website test was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.53-0.73). Conclusions and Relevance: The 3 at-home VA test results (printed chart, mobile phone app, and website) appeared comparable within 1 line to in-office VA measurements. Older participants were more likely to have limited access to digital tools. Further development and validation of at-home VA testing modalities is needed with the expansion of teleophthalmology care.

Mouth-nose masks impair the visual field of healthy eyes.

BACKGROUND: Mouth-nose masks have been requested to prevent the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). The aim of the present study was to investigate, if wearing a mouth-nose mask impairs the visual field function in normals. METHODS: Thirty eyes of 30 subjects were recruited for the present study. White-on-white perimetry (OCTOPUS 900; 90°) was done and sensitivity was analysed in 14 defined test points (P1-P14, inferior visual field) under 3 different test conditions while the subjects were wearing a mouth-nose mask: (I) 1.5 cm under the lower eyelid, nose clip not used (position1.5cm_no_clip); (II) 1.5 cm under the lower eyelid, nose clip correctly positioned (position1.5cm_with_clip); (III) 0.5 cm under the lower eyelid, nose clip correctly positioned (position0.5cm_with_clip). All data were compared to sensitivity without wearing a mouth-nose mask (reference). Mean Δ was calculated, being the difference between the results of each test condition and reference, respectively. RESULTS: Sensitivity was significantly different between position1.5cm_no_clip and reference at 10 test points (p<0.05). Sensitivity at test point P7 was significantly different between position1.5cm_with_clip and position0.5cm_with_clip compared to reference (p<0.001), respectively. Mean Δ increased while wearing a mask at P7: position1.5cm_with_clip (-8.3 dB ± 7.3 dB) < position0.5cm_with_clip (-11.3 dB ± 9.5 dB) < position1.5cm_no_clip (-20.1 dB ± 7.6 dB). CONCLUSION: Visual field function was observed to be significantly impaired in the inferior-nasal sector while persons were wearing a mouth-nose mask, especially when the nose clip was not correctly used.

Validation of visual acuity applications for teleophthalmology during COVID-19.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to identify and validate smartphone-based visual acuity (VA) apps that can be used in a teleophthalmology portal. METHODS: The study was conducted in three phases: A survey to investigate if the SmartOptometry App was easy to download, understand and test (phase I), an in-clinic comparison of VA measured in a random testing order with four tools namely COMPlog, Reduced Snellen near vision, Peek Acuity (Distance VA) and SmartOptometry (Near VA) (phase II) and a repeatability study on these 4 tools by measuring VA again (phase III). The study recruited the employees of our institute and adhered to the strict COVID-19 protocols of testing. RESULTS: Phase I Survey (n = 40) showed 90% of participants used android phones, 60% reported that instructions were clear, and all users were able to self-assess their near VA with SmartOptometry App. Phase II (n = 68) revealed that Peek Acuity was comparable to COMPlog VA (P = 0.31), however SmartOptometry was statistically significantly different (within 2 log MAR lines) from Reduced Snellen near vision test, particularly for young (n = 44, P = 0.004) and emmetropic (n = 16, P = 0.04) participants. All the 4 tests were found to be repeatable in phase III (n = 10) with a coefficient of repeatability ≤0.14. CONCLUSION: Smartphone-based apps were easy to download and can be used for checking patient's distance and near visual acuity. An effect of age and refractive error should be considered when interpreting the results. Further studies with real-time patients are required to identify potential benefits and challenges to solve.