Cargando…

Validation of a Vision-Guided Mobility Assessment for RPE65-Associated Retinal Dystrophy

PURPOSE: To validate a vision-guided mobility assessment for individuals affected by RPE65-associated retinal dystrophy (RPE65-RD). METHODS: In this comparative cross-sectional study, 29 subjects, comprising 19 subjects with RPE65-RD and 10 normally-sighted subjects undertook three assessments of mo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kumaran, Neruban, Ali, Robin R., Tyler, Nick A., Bainbridge, James W. B., Michaelides, Michel, Rubin, Gary S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7476654/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32953245
http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/tvst.9.10.5
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: To validate a vision-guided mobility assessment for individuals affected by RPE65-associated retinal dystrophy (RPE65-RD). METHODS: In this comparative cross-sectional study, 29 subjects, comprising 19 subjects with RPE65-RD and 10 normally-sighted subjects undertook three assessments of mobility: following a straight line, navigating a simple maze, and stepping over a sidewalk “kerb.” Performance was quantified as the time taken to complete each assessment, number of errors made, walking speed, and percent preferred walking speed, for each assessment. Subjects also undertook assessments of visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, full-field static perimetry, and age-appropriate quality of life questionnaires. To identify the most relevant metric to quantify vision-guided mobility, we investigated repeatability, as well as convergent, discriminant, and criterion validity. We also measured the effect of illumination on mobility. RESULTS: Walking speed through the maze assessment best discriminated between RPE65-RD and normally-sighted subjects, with both convergent and discriminant validity. Walking speed also approached statistical significance when assessed for criterion validity (P = 0.052). Subjects with RPE65-RD had quantifiably poorer mobility at lower illumination levels. A relatively small mean difference (−0.09 m/s) was identified in comparison to a relatively large repeatability coefficient (1.10 m/s). CONCLUSIONS: We describe a novel, quantifiable, repeatable, and valid assessment of mobility designed specifically for subjects with RPE65-RD. The assessment is sensitive to the visual impairment of individuals with RPE65-RD in low illumination, identifies the known phenotypic heterogeneity and will furthermore provide an important outcome measure for RPE65-RD. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: This assessment of vision-guided mobility, validated in a dedicated cohort of subjects with RPE65-RD, is a relevant and quantifiable outcome measure for RPE65-RD.