Erschienen:
Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2024
Erschienen in:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, 262 (2024) 8, Seite 2675-2683
Sprache:
Englisch
DOI:
10.1007/s00417-024-06413-0
ISSN:
1435-702X;
0721-832X
Entstehung:
Anmerkungen:
Beschreibung:
Abstract Purpose The Amblyopia tracker app has been developed to be a tool for parents to monitor changes in vision at home during amblyopia treatment. The aims of this study were to evaluate the feasibility and repeatability of parents testing their children at home and to compare home test results to an assessment in clinic by an orthoptist. Methods Children (age < 18 years) with amblyopia (interocular acuity difference of ≥ 0.2logMAR) were recruited. Parents were asked to test their child with the app three times during a two week period followed by an online questionnaire about the usability. Participants also tested within 48 h of their appointment where the measurement was repeated by an orthoptist. Results Out of 277 potential participants contacted, 37 completed three home measurements, mean age 6.8 years (SD 2.94). Home tests comparisons were made between test two and three to ensure familiarity with the process. Paired t-tests showed no statistically significant difference for either eye or the interocular acuity difference (IAD). However, 29% had a difference in IAD of more than 0.1logMAR on repeated testing, with a maximum of 0.4logMAR difference in the IAD. Questionnaire responses from the parents who participated were predominantly positive with 97% of respondents saying they would use it if were available. Comparison of home and clinical measurements (n = 23, mean age 6.72 SD 2.60) showed no statistically significant differences for either eye or interocular acuity difference (paired t-test, p > 0.3 in all cases). Conclusion Results show no statistically significant differences for the Amblyopia tracker app when used by parents at home on repeated testing, or between the home test by a parent and the test by a clinician. However, variability in the results does indicate that further improvements are required to ensure the results can be used as a reliable clinical tool.