Abstract
Purpose To evaluate the outcome of a web‐based digital assessment of visual acuity and refractive error, compared to a manifest refraction assessment, in keratoconus patients with complex refractive errors.
Material and methods Keratoconus patients, aged 18 to 40, with a refractive error between ‐6 and +4 diopters were eligible. Each participant subsequently underwent an uncorrected visual acuity and a refractive assessment. Refractive error was assessed with the web‐based tool (index test), an autorefractor, and a manifest refraction (reference test) by an optometrist. Corrected visual acuity was assessed with the web‐based and manifest refractive prescription. Non‐inferiority was defined as the 95% limits‐of‐agreement (95%LoA) of the differences in spherical equivalent between the index and reference test not exceeding +/‐ 0.5 diopters. Agreement was assessed by an intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland‐Altman analyses.
Results A total of 100 eyes of 50 patients were examined. The overall mean difference of the uncorrected visual acuity measured ‐0.01 LogMAR (95%LoA:‐0.63–0.60). The variability decreased in the high uncorrected visual acuity subgroup (mean difference: 0.15 LogMAR, 95%LoA:‐0.25–0.55). The intraclass correlation coefficient of the three refractive assessments was 0.32. The overall mean difference in spherical equivalent between the index and reference test measured ‐0.58 diopters (95%LoA:‐4.49 – 3.33, P=0.008). The mean differences for myopic and hyperopic subjects were 0.09 diopters (P=0.675) and ‐2.06 diopters (P<0.001), respectively.
Conclusions Our results show promising results in the ability of the web‐based tool to remotely assess visual acuity in keratoconus patients. The agreement is better in higher visual acuity ranges and could provide physicians with an objective measurement to enhance teleconsultations, especially relevant when access to health care is limited. The assessment of the refractive error using the web‐based tool was found to be inferior to the manifest refraction and deserves further training of the tools algorithm.
Competing Interest Statement
MM is an employee of the UMC Utrecht & consultant for Easee BV, JC is an employee of the UMC Utrecht, FC is an employee of Easee BV, DG is an employee of the UMC Utrecht, YP is the CEO/founder and shareholder of Easee BV, RW is an employee of the UMC Utrecht & consultant and shareholder of Easee BV.
Clinical Trial
NCT03313921
Funding Statement
This investigator initiated study was sponsored by a grant from Easee BV.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study protocol was approved by the UMC Utrecht Ethics Review Board (METC number: 17-524), and it was registered at the CCMO (number: NL61478.041.17). All participants provided written informed consent.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Financial disclosure: MM is an employee of the UMC Utrecht & consultant for Easee BV, JC is an employee of the UMC Utrecht, FC is an employee of Easee BV, DG is an employee of the UMC Utrecht, YP is the CEO/founder and shareholder of Easee BV, RW is an employee of the UMC Utrecht & consultant and shareholder of Easee BV. This investigator initiated study was sponsored by a grant from Easee BV.
Data Availability
The data underlying the results are available upon request, except for the uncorrected visual acuity data. The data can only be shared with other researchers after signing a transfer agreement with the manufacturer of the tool, easee.online.
Abbreviations
- AK
- Amsler Krumeich
- CDVA
- Corrected distance visual acuity
- CI
- confidence interval
- D
- diopter
- ETDRS
- Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study
- LoA
- limits of agreement
- LogMAR
- logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution
- GEE
- generalized estimates equation
- UDVA
- uncorrected distance visual acuity
- ICC
- intraclass correlation coefficient
