An innovative visual acuity chart for urgent and primary care settings: validation of the Runge near vision card.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the Runge card, a near-vision eye chart designed for ease of use, by testing agreement in visual acuity results between it and the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) visual acuity chart. As a clinical reference point, we compared the Runge card and an electronic Snellen chart with respect to agreement with ETDRS results. METHODS: Participants consisted of adult eye clinic patient volunteers who underwent a protocol refraction, followed by testing with a Runge card, ETDRS chart, and Snellen chart. Mean logMAR visual acuities were calculated for each method. Agreement levels among the tests were assessed for the group overall and for subjects with good (ETDRS logMAR < 0.6; better than 20/80 Snellen equivalent) and poor (logMAR ≥ 0.6) acuity. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-eight participants completed testing. The mean ( ± standard deviation) logMAR visual acuities (Snellen equivalent) with Runge, ETDRS, and Snellen, respectively, were 0.66 ± 0.50 (20/91, n = 138), 0.59 ± 0.51 (20/78, n = 138), and 0.67 ± 0.62 (20/94, n = 137). Runge testing agreed similarly with ETDRS and Snellen testing, with CCC 0.92 between Runge and ETDRS, and 0.87 between Runge and Snellen (p = 0.14). Runge agreed better with ETDRS than Snellen agreed with ETDRS in participants with poor acuity (CCC = 0.79 vs. 0.63, respectively, p = 0.001) but not in those with good acuity (CCC = 0.70 vs. 0.87, respectively, p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Visual acuity measurements with the Runge near card agreed with measurements from the ETDRS to approximately the same degree as did the Snellen chart, suggesting potential utility of the Runge near card, particularly given its user-friendly characteristics and ease of use.

CLINICAL EVALUATION OF THE RAPID ACCESS VITREAL INJECTION GUIDE: A Handheld Instrument for Assisting Intravitreal Injections.

PURPOSE: The Rapid Access Vitreal Injection (RAVI) guide combines the function of an eyelid speculum and measuring caliper into a single instrument for assisting intravitreal injections. This study clinically evaluated the RAVI guide with respect to patient acceptance, complication rates, and operative goals. METHODS: A prospective study was performed on 54 patients undergoing intravitreal injections using the RAVI guide (n = 32) or the speculum/caliper (n = 22). Device-related pain was assessed using the Wong-Baker scoring system, scaled from 0 (no pain) to 10 (agonizing pain). RESULTS: Mean device-related pain score did not differ significantly between the 2 groups, with scores of 0.6 and 0.7 for the RAVI guide and speculum groups, respectively. The rate of significant pain (score of ≥2) was twice as high in the speculum group (7 of 22, 32%) compared with the RAVI guide group (5 of 32, 16%), but this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.19, Fisher's exact test). Operative goals of avoiding needle touch to lashes/lids and guiding needle insertion to the intended site were achieved in all patients. CONCLUSION: The RAVI guide appeared equivalent to the eyelid speculum in achieving operative goals, with similarly low pain scores. It has the potential for facilitating efficient, accurate, and safe intravitreal injections.