Stand magnifiers for low vision: description, prescription, assessment

2022 Glenn A. Fry Award lecture: Enhancing clinical assessment for improved ophthalmic management

ABSTRACT

Detailed clinical assessment is critical to allow sensitive evaluation of the eye and its management. As technology advances, these assessment techniques can be adapted and refined to improve the detection of pathological changes of ocular tissue and their impact on visual function. Enhancements in optical medical devices including spectacle, contact, and intraocular lenses have allowed for a better understanding of the mechanism and amelioration of presbyopia and myopia control. Advancements in imaging technology have enabled improved quantification of the tear film and ocular surface, informing diagnosis and treatment strategies. Miniaturized electronics, large processing power, and in-built sensors in smartphones and tablets capacitate more portable assessment tools for clinicians, facilitate self-monitoring and treatment compliance, and aid communication with patients. This article gives an overview of how technology has been used in many areas of eye care to improve assessments and treatment and provides a snapshot of some of my studies validating and using technology to inform better evidence-based patient management.

Technical Report: A New Method for Determining Image Distance for Stand Magnifiers

SIGNIFICANCE

Low vision rehabilitation clinicians must sometimes evaluate stand magnifiers to determine their true optical properties. A novel method is described for measuring the image distance of stand magnifiers.

PURPOSE

We describe a new method for determining the image distance of stand magnifiers, which has some advantages over previously described methods.

METHODS

Diverging light emerging from a stand magnifier is brought to a focus on the ceiling or other flat surface using convex lenses placed on the top of the stand magnifier lens. Knowing the power of this convex lens and the distance from the magnifier lens to the imaging surface, one can calculate the degree to which the emerging light is diverging and, from that, the image distance. Each author evaluated three stand magnifiers using this method and compared our results with each other and with the values for image distance published by the manufacturer.

RESULTS

Our method produced measurements that were consistent between three clinicians, with emerging divergence values differing by no more than 0.37 D and image distance differing by 0.6 to 3.1 cm for the three magnifiers evaluated. Our measured values also corresponded favorably with the published image distances listed in the manufacturer's catalog, deviating by a maximum of 3.7 cm and a mean of 1.3 cm. When the manufacturer's image distances were converted to dioptric divergence, our measurements varied by a maximum of 0.48 D and a mean of 0.17 D.

CONCLUSIONS

Our method provides an expedient and clinically accurate way to evaluate the divergence and image distance of a stand magnifier. Knowing the image distance is valuable by itself, but the divergence of the emerging light is also critical in determining the stand magnifier's enlargement ratio.