Cargando…

Validation of the DYOP visual acuity test

PURPOSE: The dynamic optotype (DYOP) visual acuity (VA) test is based on motion detection rather than element resolution and has been proposed for routine clinical assessment. This investigation examined the validity, inter- and intra-session repeatability and subjective preference for the DYOP vers...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gantz, Liat, Paritzky, Dinah, Wunch, Inbar, Kageyama, Andrew H., Wolf, Nadav, Cherny, Christina, Rosenfield, Mark
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10518763/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36400682
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2022.09.006
_version_ 1785109587379093504
author Gantz, Liat
Paritzky, Dinah
Wunch, Inbar
Kageyama, Andrew H.
Wolf, Nadav
Cherny, Christina
Rosenfield, Mark
author_facet Gantz, Liat
Paritzky, Dinah
Wunch, Inbar
Kageyama, Andrew H.
Wolf, Nadav
Cherny, Christina
Rosenfield, Mark
author_sort Gantz, Liat
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The dynamic optotype (DYOP) visual acuity (VA) test is based on motion detection rather than element resolution and has been proposed for routine clinical assessment. This investigation examined the validity, inter- and intra-session repeatability and subjective preference for the DYOP versus a static letter chart and examined its utility in detecting astigmatic defocus. METHODS: VA of 103 participants was measured three times with the letter and DYOP charts and repeated within two weeks in 75 participants who also rated their subjective experience. The VA of 29 participants was measured using DYOP, letter, Landolt C, and Tumbling E charts, with habitual correction and astigmatism induced with +1.00, +2.00 or +3.00 cylinders at 45, 60, 90 and 180°. RESULTS: The charts differed by a mean of 0.02 logMAR, with 81% of the measurements within one line of acuity. Inter-session, intraclass correlation coefficients, within-subject SD and repeatability were 0.03 logMAR, 0.95, 0.11 and 0.30 versus 0.01 logMAR, 0.92, 0.15 and 0.42 for the DYOP and letter charts, respectively. The DYOP was significantly more frustrating (1.79 vs.1.36), with 59% preferring the letter chart. The DYOP was least affected by induced astigmatism. CONCLUSIONS: The DYOP and letter charts differed significantly in their mean values with wide limits of agreement. DYOP had better within-subject SD and narrower limits of agreement between sessions, though clinically insignificant, and performed significantly worse for the detection of uncorrected astigmatism. Thus, it is difficult to recommend this test for the clinical determination of refractive error.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10518763
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105187632023-09-26 Validation of the DYOP visual acuity test Gantz, Liat Paritzky, Dinah Wunch, Inbar Kageyama, Andrew H. Wolf, Nadav Cherny, Christina Rosenfield, Mark J Optom Original Article PURPOSE: The dynamic optotype (DYOP) visual acuity (VA) test is based on motion detection rather than element resolution and has been proposed for routine clinical assessment. This investigation examined the validity, inter- and intra-session repeatability and subjective preference for the DYOP versus a static letter chart and examined its utility in detecting astigmatic defocus. METHODS: VA of 103 participants was measured three times with the letter and DYOP charts and repeated within two weeks in 75 participants who also rated their subjective experience. The VA of 29 participants was measured using DYOP, letter, Landolt C, and Tumbling E charts, with habitual correction and astigmatism induced with +1.00, +2.00 or +3.00 cylinders at 45, 60, 90 and 180°. RESULTS: The charts differed by a mean of 0.02 logMAR, with 81% of the measurements within one line of acuity. Inter-session, intraclass correlation coefficients, within-subject SD and repeatability were 0.03 logMAR, 0.95, 0.11 and 0.30 versus 0.01 logMAR, 0.92, 0.15 and 0.42 for the DYOP and letter charts, respectively. The DYOP was significantly more frustrating (1.79 vs.1.36), with 59% preferring the letter chart. The DYOP was least affected by induced astigmatism. CONCLUSIONS: The DYOP and letter charts differed significantly in their mean values with wide limits of agreement. DYOP had better within-subject SD and narrower limits of agreement between sessions, though clinically insignificant, and performed significantly worse for the detection of uncorrected astigmatism. Thus, it is difficult to recommend this test for the clinical determination of refractive error. Elsevier 2023 2022-11-16 /pmc/articles/PMC10518763/ /pubmed/36400682 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2022.09.006 Text en © 2022 Spanish General Council of Optometry. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Gantz, Liat
Paritzky, Dinah
Wunch, Inbar
Kageyama, Andrew H.
Wolf, Nadav
Cherny, Christina
Rosenfield, Mark
Validation of the DYOP visual acuity test
title Validation of the DYOP visual acuity test
title_full Validation of the DYOP visual acuity test
title_fullStr Validation of the DYOP visual acuity test
title_full_unstemmed Validation of the DYOP visual acuity test
title_short Validation of the DYOP visual acuity test
title_sort validation of the dyop visual acuity test
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10518763/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36400682
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2022.09.006
work_keys_str_mv AT gantzliat validationofthedyopvisualacuitytest
AT paritzkydinah validationofthedyopvisualacuitytest
AT wunchinbar validationofthedyopvisualacuitytest
AT kageyamaandrewh validationofthedyopvisualacuitytest
AT wolfnadav validationofthedyopvisualacuitytest
AT chernychristina validationofthedyopvisualacuitytest
AT rosenfieldmark validationofthedyopvisualacuitytest