Simple clinical techniques to evaluate visual function in patients with early cataract.
ABSTRACT Among the 80 subjects who were recruited with normal retinal and neural function, 54 had cataract and a visual acuity (VA) better than 6/24. The 26 age-matched subjects had clear media. Contrast sensitivity (CS) at low and intermediate spatial frequencies was measured using the Pelli-Robson letter chart. Two measures of glare disability (GD) were obtained using the Mentor Brightness Acuity Tester (BAT) in conjunction with a logMAR VA chart and the Pelli-Robson chart. Although CS is predominantly affected at high spatial frequencies in early cataract, we found that some subjects had reduced scores on the Pelli-Robson chart. This CS loss could not be predicted from VA measurements and was particularly found in subjects with posterior subcapsular cataract. High GD scores were found in a number of subjects with relatively good VA and could not be predicted from results of VA or CS. We suggest that CS and GD measurements using the Pelli-Robson chart and the BAT provide valuable information regarding the management of patients with early cataract.
- SourceAvailable from: Kwadwo Owusu Akuffo[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Purpose. To compare measures of visual acuity (VA) and contrast sensitivity (CS) from the Thompson Xpert 2000 and MultiQuity (MiQ) devices. Methods. Corrected distance VA (CDVA) and CS were measured in the right eye of 73 subjects, on an established system (Thompson Xpert) and a novel system (MiQ 720). Regression was used to convert MiQ scores into the Thompson scale. Agreement between the converted MiQ and Thompson scores was investigated using standard agreement indices. Test-retest variability for both devices was also investigated, for a separate sample of 24 subjects. Results. For CDVA, agreement was strong between the MiQ and Thomson devices (accuracy = 0.993, precision = 0.889, CCC = 0.883). For CS, agreement was also strong (accuracy = 0.996, precision = 0.911, CCC = 0.907). Agreement was unaffected by demographic variables or by presence/absence of ocular pathology. Test-retest agreement indices for both devices were excellent: in the range 0.88-0.96 for CDVA and in the range 0.90-0.98 for CS. Conclusion. MiQ measurements exhibit strong agreement with corresponding Thomson measurements, and test-retest results are good for both devices. Agreement between the two devices is unaffected by age or ocular pathology.Journal of Ophthalmology 12/2014; 2014. DOI:10.1155/2014/180317 · 1.94 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The Shahroud Eye Cohort Study was set up to determine the prevalence and incidence of visual impairment and major eye conditions in the 40-64-year-old population of Shahroud as a Middle Eastern population. The first phase of the study was conducted in 2009-10. Using random cluster sampling, 6311 Shahroud inhabitants were invited for ophthalmologic examinations; of these, 5190 participants completed phase 1 (participation rate of 82.2%). All participants were interviewed to collect data on participants' demographics, occupation status, socioeconomic status, history of smoking, and medical and ophthalmic history, as well as history of medication, and the quality and duration of their insurance. DNA and plasma samples, as well as four dots of whole blood were collected from participants. Extensive optometric and ophthalmologic examinations were performed for each participant, including lensometry of current glasses, testing near and far visual acuity; determining objective and subjective refraction; eye motility; cycloplegic refraction; colour vision test; slit-lamp biomicroscopy and intraocular pressure measurement; direct and indirect fundoscopy; perimetry test; ocular biometry; corneal topography; lens and fundus photography; and the Schirmer's (1008 participants) and tear breakup time tests (1013 participants). The study data are available for collaborative research at Noor Ophthalmology Research Center, Tehran, Iran.International Journal of Epidemiology 10/2012; 42(5). DOI:10.1093/ije/dys161 · 9.20 Impact Factor