Evaluation of a visual acuity eHealth tool in patients with cataract

Joukje C Wanten; Noël J C Bauer; Janneau L J Claessens; Thomas van Amelsfort; Tos T J M Berendschot; Robert P L Wisse; Rudy M M A Nuijts

doi:10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001108

Evaluation of a visual acuity eHealth tool in patients with cataract

Joukje C Wanten^*, Noël J C Bauer, Janneau L J Claessens, Thomas van Amelsfort, Tos T J M Berendschot, Robert P L Wisse, Rudy M M A Nuijts

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

PURPOSE: To validate the Easee web-based tool for the assessment of visual acuity in patients who underwent cataract surgery.

SETTING: University Eye Clinic Maastricht, the Netherlands.

DESIGN: Prospective method comparison study.

METHODS: Subjects aged between 18 and 69 years old who underwent cataract surgery on one or both eyes at the Maastricht University Medical Center+ were eligible to participate in this study. The uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected visual acuity (CDVA) assessments were performed using the web-based tool (index-test) and conventional ETDRS and Snellen charts (reference tests). The outcomes of the different tests were expressed in logMAR and a difference of <0.15 logMAR was considered clinically acceptable.

RESULTS: A total of 46 subjects with 75 operated eyes were included in this study. The difference of the UDVA between the web-based tool and ETDRS or Snellen was -0.05±0.10 logMAR (p=<0.001, [0.15; -0.26]) and -0.04±0.15 logMAR (p=0.018, [0.24; -0.33]), respectively. For the CDVA, these differences were -0.04±0.08 logMAR (p=<0.001, [0.13; -0.21]) and -0.07±0.10 logMAR (p=<0.001, [0.13; -0.27]), respectively. The Pearson correlation coefficients between the web-based tool and ETDRS were maximally 0.94 and compared to Snellen 0.92. In total, 73% to 88% of the visual acuity measurement differences were within 0.15 logMAR.

CONCLUSION: The web-based tool was validated for the assessment of visual acuity in patients who underwent cataract surgery and showed clinically acceptable outcomes in up to 88% of patients. The majority of participants had a positive attitude towards the web-based tool, which requires basic digital skills.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	278-284
Number of pages	7
Journal	Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery
Volume	49
Issue number	3
Early online date	6 Dec 2022
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001108
Publication status	Published - Mar 2023

Access to Document

10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001108Licence: CC BY

Cite this

@article{f6e15bc4afea408d9c4fab0beb656a75,

title = "Evaluation of a visual acuity eHealth tool in patients with cataract",

abstract = "PURPOSE: To validate the Easee web-based tool for the assessment of visual acuity in patients who underwent cataract surgery.SETTING: University Eye Clinic Maastricht, the Netherlands.DESIGN: Prospective method comparison study.METHODS: Subjects aged between 18 and 69 years old who underwent cataract surgery on one or both eyes at the Maastricht University Medical Center+ were eligible to participate in this study. The uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected visual acuity (CDVA) assessments were performed using the web-based tool (index-test) and conventional ETDRS and Snellen charts (reference tests). The outcomes of the different tests were expressed in logMAR and a difference of <0.15 logMAR was considered clinically acceptable.RESULTS: A total of 46 subjects with 75 operated eyes were included in this study. The difference of the UDVA between the web-based tool and ETDRS or Snellen was -0.05±0.10 logMAR (p=<0.001, [0.15; -0.26]) and -0.04±0.15 logMAR (p=0.018, [0.24; -0.33]), respectively. For the CDVA, these differences were -0.04±0.08 logMAR (p=<0.001, [0.13; -0.21]) and -0.07±0.10 logMAR (p=<0.001, [0.13; -0.27]), respectively. The Pearson correlation coefficients between the web-based tool and ETDRS were maximally 0.94 and compared to Snellen 0.92. In total, 73% to 88% of the visual acuity measurement differences were within 0.15 logMAR.CONCLUSION: The web-based tool was validated for the assessment of visual acuity in patients who underwent cataract surgery and showed clinically acceptable outcomes in up to 88% of patients. The majority of participants had a positive attitude towards the web-based tool, which requires basic digital skills.",

author = "Wanten, {Joukje C} and Bauer, {No{\"e}l J C} and Claessens, {Janneau L J} and {van Amelsfort}, Thomas and Berendschot, {Tos T J M} and Wisse, {Robert P L} and Nuijts, {Rudy M M A}",

note = "Copyright {\textcopyright} 2022 Published by Wolters Kluwer on behalf of ASCRS and ESCRS.",

year = "2023",

month = mar,

doi = "10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001108",

language = "English",

volume = "49",

pages = "278--284",

journal = "Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery",

issn = "0886-3350",

publisher = "Elsevier Science",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of a visual acuity eHealth tool in patients with cataract

AU - Wanten, Joukje C

AU - Bauer, Noël J C

AU - Claessens, Janneau L J

AU - van Amelsfort, Thomas

AU - Berendschot, Tos T J M

AU - Wisse, Robert P L

AU - Nuijts, Rudy M M A

PY - 2023/3

Y1 - 2023/3

N2 - PURPOSE: To validate the Easee web-based tool for the assessment of visual acuity in patients who underwent cataract surgery.SETTING: University Eye Clinic Maastricht, the Netherlands.DESIGN: Prospective method comparison study.METHODS: Subjects aged between 18 and 69 years old who underwent cataract surgery on one or both eyes at the Maastricht University Medical Center+ were eligible to participate in this study. The uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected visual acuity (CDVA) assessments were performed using the web-based tool (index-test) and conventional ETDRS and Snellen charts (reference tests). The outcomes of the different tests were expressed in logMAR and a difference of <0.15 logMAR was considered clinically acceptable.RESULTS: A total of 46 subjects with 75 operated eyes were included in this study. The difference of the UDVA between the web-based tool and ETDRS or Snellen was -0.05±0.10 logMAR (p=<0.001, [0.15; -0.26]) and -0.04±0.15 logMAR (p=0.018, [0.24; -0.33]), respectively. For the CDVA, these differences were -0.04±0.08 logMAR (p=<0.001, [0.13; -0.21]) and -0.07±0.10 logMAR (p=<0.001, [0.13; -0.27]), respectively. The Pearson correlation coefficients between the web-based tool and ETDRS were maximally 0.94 and compared to Snellen 0.92. In total, 73% to 88% of the visual acuity measurement differences were within 0.15 logMAR.CONCLUSION: The web-based tool was validated for the assessment of visual acuity in patients who underwent cataract surgery and showed clinically acceptable outcomes in up to 88% of patients. The majority of participants had a positive attitude towards the web-based tool, which requires basic digital skills.

AB - PURPOSE: To validate the Easee web-based tool for the assessment of visual acuity in patients who underwent cataract surgery.SETTING: University Eye Clinic Maastricht, the Netherlands.DESIGN: Prospective method comparison study.METHODS: Subjects aged between 18 and 69 years old who underwent cataract surgery on one or both eyes at the Maastricht University Medical Center+ were eligible to participate in this study. The uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected visual acuity (CDVA) assessments were performed using the web-based tool (index-test) and conventional ETDRS and Snellen charts (reference tests). The outcomes of the different tests were expressed in logMAR and a difference of <0.15 logMAR was considered clinically acceptable.RESULTS: A total of 46 subjects with 75 operated eyes were included in this study. The difference of the UDVA between the web-based tool and ETDRS or Snellen was -0.05±0.10 logMAR (p=<0.001, [0.15; -0.26]) and -0.04±0.15 logMAR (p=0.018, [0.24; -0.33]), respectively. For the CDVA, these differences were -0.04±0.08 logMAR (p=<0.001, [0.13; -0.21]) and -0.07±0.10 logMAR (p=<0.001, [0.13; -0.27]), respectively. The Pearson correlation coefficients between the web-based tool and ETDRS were maximally 0.94 and compared to Snellen 0.92. In total, 73% to 88% of the visual acuity measurement differences were within 0.15 logMAR.CONCLUSION: The web-based tool was validated for the assessment of visual acuity in patients who underwent cataract surgery and showed clinically acceptable outcomes in up to 88% of patients. The majority of participants had a positive attitude towards the web-based tool, which requires basic digital skills.

U2 - 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001108

DO - 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001108

M3 - Article

C2 - 36729837

SN - 0886-3350

VL - 49

SP - 278

EP - 284

JO - Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery

JF - Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery

IS - 3

ER -

Evaluation of a visual acuity eHealth tool in patients with cataract

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this