Pushing the envelope: the feasibility of using a mailed contrast sensitivity test to prioritise cataract waiting lists.

BACKGROUND: Cataract waiting lists are growing globally. Pragmatic, cost-effective methods are required to prioritise the most urgent cases. Here we investigate the feasibility of using a third-party pen-and-paper contrast sensitivity, CS, test (SpotChecksTM), delivered by mail, and performed by patients at home unsupervised, to flag eyes requiring surgery. METHODS: Pen-and-paper CS tests were mailed to 233 people waiting for a cataract assessment, along with a prepaid return envelope (cross-sectional study). Response rates were tabulated (stratified by age, sex and socioeconomic status), and test scores analysed to see how well the home tests predicted which eyes were listed subsequently for surgery. A subset of patients (N = 39) also underwent in-person follow-up testing, to confirm the accuracy of the home data. RESULTS: Forty-six percent of patients responded (216 eyes). No gross differences were observed between respondents and non-respondents, either in terms of age, sex, socioeconomic status, or geographic location (all P > 0.05). The home-test CS scores predicted which eyes were subsequently listed for surgery, with an AUROC {±CI95%} of 0.69 {0.61-0.76}. Predictive performance was further-improved when machine learning was used to combine CS scores with letter acuity, extracted from patients' medical records (AUROC {±CI95%} = 0.77 {0.70-0.83}). Among 39 patients who underwent follow-up testing, home CS scores were correlated with various measures made in clinic: biometry signal-to-noise (P = 0.032), LogMAR acuity, Pelli-Robson CS and SpotChecks CS (all P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Mailing patients pen-and-paper CS tests may be a feasible, 'low-tech' way of prioritising patients on cataract waiting lists.

Measures of multiple deprivation and visual field loss in glaucoma clinics in England: lessons from big data.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: To examine the association between multiple deprivation with late diagnosis and rapid worsening of glaucoma in patients in English hospital eye services (HES). METHODS: 602,439 visual fields (VFs) were extracted from five regionally different glaucoma clinics in England. Mean Deviation (MD) worse than -12 dB was used as a surrogate definition for advanced VF loss at diagnosis in patients with ≥2 reliable VF records. MD loss worse than -1 dB per year was used to define rapid VF progression in patients with ≥6 VFs. Patient data were stratified into deciles of the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) from residential postcodes. RESULTS: There was an association between IMD and advanced VF loss at diagnosis in 44,956 patients with 18% (293/1608) and 11% (771/6929) in the most and least deprived IMD decile, respectively. Age-corrected odds ratio (OR) for having advanced VF loss at entry into HES was 1.42 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21-1.67) and 0.75 (95% CI: 0.66-0.85) in the most and least deprived IMD decile respectively (reference = fifth decile). In 15,094 patients with follow up data (median [interquartile range] of 6.9 [4.5, 10.0] years), the proportion having rapid VF progression did not differ across the IMD spectrum. CONCLUSION: Large-scale VF data from clinics indicates that glaucoma severity at presentation to English HES is associated with levels of multiple deprivation. We found no evidence to suggest likelihood of having rapid VF progression during follow-up is associated with IMD; this hints at equity of glaucoma care and outcomes once patients are in English HES.

Reliability of Aqueous Flare Measurements During Uveitis by a Spot Fluorometer.

Purpose: To evaluate the reliability of intensity of light scatter (ILS) for diagnosing mild-to-moderate uveitis, which is difficult to score by the subjective standardized uveitis nomenclature (SUN) grading. Methods: ILS (in millivolts) was measured in healthy subjects and uveitis patients by a custom-made Spot fluorometer. The reliability was assessed by noise analysis of the instrument using turbid samples and intra- and interobserver variabilities. Results: ILS increased with the severity of inflammation: healthy (0.1498 ± 0.0564) and SUN0 (0.1590 ± 0.0564) < SUN1+ (0.2050 ± 0.0887) < SUN2+ (0.4283 ± 0.1895). The increase in ILS was more significant between healthy and SUN1+ (P < 0.0001) compared to the difference between SUN0 and SUN1+ (P = 0.0006). The instrument noise was small (σ = 0.002). Intraobserver measurements revealed no variability (P > 0.98) between measurements and predicted repeatability coefficients of 0.0754, 0.0522, and 0.0532 in healthy, SUN0, and SUN1+, respectively. Interobserver measurements also showed no variability (P > 0.88) and predicted intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.63 in healthy and uveitis subjects. Conclusions: The fluorometer enables precise measurement of ILS with negligible instrument noise, and the measurements are unaffected by intra- and interobserver variabilities. However, the difference in mean ILS between SUN0 and SUN1+ is greater than the instrument noise and comparable to intra- and interobserver variabilities. Thus, ILS measurements are likely impacted by blinking, eye movements, and focusing jitter. The impact of these factors must be reduced before using the fluorometer to distinguish mild-to-moderate uveitis.

The effect of refractive surgery on blur thresholds.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to measure blur thresholds before and after refractive surgery. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study conducted in a tertiary eye hospital in South India. Blur thresholds were measured for 30 young adult myopic patients 1 month prior to and after refractive surgery. Patients were asked to report three stages of blur, namely Detectable Blur (DB), Bothersome Blur (BB), and Non-resolvable Blur (NB). Blur was created by adding plus lenses (in steps of 0.12D) over their optimal subjective refraction. The blur judgments were made both monocularly and binocularly when looking through a 3 mm artificial pupil at one line above the best-corrected visual acuity. RESULTS: A total of 30 participants were included in this study (mean age = 25.5 ± 3.8 (20-36) years; 77% female). The mean binocular preoperative blur of this group was: DB = 0.39 ± 0.26D, BB = 0.74 ± 0.28D and NB = 1.04 ± 0.42D. The corresponding mean binocular blur one-month post-operatively was DB = 0.46 ± 0.28D, BB = 0.83 ± 0.35D, and NB = 1.21 ± 0.44D. Although there was a marginal increase in the blur thresholds postoperatively, the difference was not statistically significant (DB: P = 0.320; BB: P = 0.229; NB: P = 0.054). CONCLUSION: All three blur thresholds showed an insignificant minimal increase at 1 month post-operatively suggesting that patients adapt to the induced blur following refractive surgery. A longer follow up would reveal how the adaptation to blur would change with time.