Journal of AAPOS : the official publication of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus · 2018
Comparison of a new digital KM screen test with conventional Hess and Lees screen tests in the mapping of ocular deviations.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Thorisdottir Rannveig Linda, Sundgren Johanna, Sheikh Rafi, Blohmé Jonas, Hammar Björn, Kjellström Sten, Malmsjö Malin
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the digital KM screen computerized ocular motility test and to compare it with conventional nondigital techniques using the Hess and Lees screens.
METHODS: Patients with known ocular deviations and a visual acuity of at least 20/100 underwent testing using the digital KM screen and the Hess and Lees screen tests. The examination duration, the subjectively perceived difficulty, and the patient's method of choice were compared for the three tests. The accuracy of test results was compared using Bland-Altman plots between testing methods.
RESULTS: A total of 19 patients were included. Examination with the digital KM screen test was less time-consuming than tests with the Hess and Lees screens (P < 0.001 and P = 0.003, resp., compared with the digital KM screen). Patients found the test with the digital KM screen easier to perform than the Lees screen test (P = 0.009) but of similar difficulty to the Hess screen test (P = 0.203). The majority of the patients (83%) preferred the digital KM screen test to both of the other screen methods (P = 0.008). Bland-Altman plots showed that the results obtained with all three tests were similar.
CONCLUSIONS: The digital KM screen is accurate and time saving and provides similar results to Lees and Hess screen testing. It also has the advantage of a digital data analysis and registration.
METHODS: Patients with known ocular deviations and a visual acuity of at least 20/100 underwent testing using the digital KM screen and the Hess and Lees screen tests. The examination duration, the subjectively perceived difficulty, and the patient's method of choice were compared for the three tests. The accuracy of test results was compared using Bland-Altman plots between testing methods.
RESULTS: A total of 19 patients were included. Examination with the digital KM screen test was less time-consuming than tests with the Hess and Lees screens (P < 0.001 and P = 0.003, resp., compared with the digital KM screen). Patients found the test with the digital KM screen easier to perform than the Lees screen test (P = 0.009) but of similar difficulty to the Hess screen test (P = 0.203). The majority of the patients (83%) preferred the digital KM screen test to both of the other screen methods (P = 0.008). Bland-Altman plots showed that the results obtained with all three tests were similar.
CONCLUSIONS: The digital KM screen is accurate and time saving and provides similar results to Lees and Hess screen testing. It also has the advantage of a digital data analysis and registration.