| Autor: |
Samanta A; Department of Ophthalmology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA., Santineau K; School of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, Texas, USA., Park A; School of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, Texas, USA., Nguyen D; School of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, Texas, USA., Kim Cavdar I; School of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, Texas, USA., Nelson P; Minnesota Eye Institute, Alexandria, Minnesota, USA. |
| Abstrakt: |
Introduction: The ability to measure a patient's visual acuity at home (HVA) is by far the most desired remote telemedicine capability sought by ophthalmologists. Methods: A systematic literature review was done using Pubmed to search for publications from 2010 to 2022 in English reporting on 10 studies that compared a patient's HVA to the clinic visual acuity (CVA). Results: Approaches to measuring HVA included using a phone-based application, a physical chart, a computer, and a website. The most accurate of these was the use of personal computers (COMPlog, Macustat, Web based test) at home with a bias of 1 letter. The most accessible and reliable was the use of a printable visual acuity chart, available in the public domain, which had adifference between HVA and CVA of 1 to 3.5 letters. Phone apps (Verana Vision) and stand-alone websites (Farsight.com) both had a greater mean difference of about 6 letters, respectively,with a moderate correlation coefficient. Discussion: Overall, all three methodologies demonstrated a good negative predictive value demonstrating their potential use as an effective screening tool to flag drastic vision decline between clinic visits. |
