A new visual acuity test on touchpad for vision screening in children

Home-based screening tools for amblyopia: a systematic review

Amblyopia is an important public health concern. While home-based screening may present an effective solution, this has not been rigorously assessed in a systematic review. A systematic review was performed using Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, and Clinicaltrials.gov. All studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of home-based screening tools for amblyopia among children were included. Studies involving orthoptist or ophthalmologist-led screening and adult subjects were excluded. The main outcome measure was the diagnostic accuracy expressed as sensitivity and specificity. Among 3670 studies identified, 28 were eligible for inclusion in our systematic review. The age range of patients were less than 1 month to 16 years old. 7 studies used internet-based tools, 16 used smartphone/tablet applications, 3 used digital cameras, and 3 used home-based questionnaires and visual acuity tools. All studies included a reference standard except one, which was a longitudinal study. 21 studies had full ophthalmological examination whilst 6 studies had validated visual acuity measurement tools as gold standards. Of the 27 studies which compared against a reference test, only 25 studies reported sensitivity and specificity values. Using the QUADAS-2 tool, 50% of studies were deemed to have applicability concern due to patient selection from tertiary centres and unclear methods for recruitment. There is a need to improve the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies, standardise thresholds for detecting amblyopia, and ensure consistent reporting of results. Further research is needed to evaluate the suitability of these tools for amblyopia screening.

Evaluation of a New Method to Track Changes in Vision at Home for Children Undergoing Amblyopia Treatment

PURPOSE

A new amblyopia tracker app has been designed to provide parents with a method of monitoring a child's vision by presenting a single optotype size that the tester moves to identify the furthest distance the optotypes can be seen. The aim of this study is to evaluate this methodology in adults, comparing the findings to visual acuity (VA) measured with the iSight app and to determine the test retest variability.

METHODS

Adults, aged 18-39 years, with no known eye condition and VA ≤ 0.7 logMAR were recruited. Bangerter filters were used to simulate amblyopia, where VA was reduced below 0.0 with an interocular difference of at least 0.2 logMAR. Testing for both apps was performed monocularly, with the test order being randomised.

RESULTS

Data from 32 subjects were analysed. For the test retest variability analysis, paired t-tests showed no statistically significant difference between the tests for either eye, either app or the interocular acuity difference (p > 0.3 in all cases). Bland Altman plots showed similar limits of agreement between the two apps. When comparing measurements between the apps there was no statistically significant difference on the first or second test, either eye or the interocular acuity difference (p > 0.5 in all cases).

CONCLUSION

The results support the theory that changing distance is a valid method of assessing VA as the measurements agree well with the standard approach of reducing optotype size. Test retest variability is similar between the two apps and there is good agreement between the measurements.