• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文会议>Conference on Current Developments in Lens Design and Optical Engineering >Comparison of the Efficacy of Three Direct Ophthalmoscopes: A Clinical Study
【24h】

Comparison of the Efficacy of Three Direct Ophthalmoscopes: A Clinical Study

机译：三种直接眼镜诊断的疗效比较：临床研究

获取原文
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Retinal examination using direct ophthalmoscope is preferred over other techniques for screening purposes because of itsportability and high magnification, despite its power sustainability and cost issues. With increasing number of low-costsustainable devices available in the market, it is important to assess the efficacy of the devices. We compared threedevices – Arclight ophthalmoscope, a D-Eye attached to iPhone 6, and conventional ophthalmoscope Heine K180 – interms of ease of examination, usage, field of view, color rendition, patient comfort, length of examination, and closenessto the eye. Two trained optometrists examined 26 undilated eyes and graded the ease of retinal examination, ease of useand assessed vertical cup:disc ratio (VCDR). Patients reported their comfort level in terms of glare produced by the lightsource, length of examination and closeness to the eye. The examiners had a good agreement for all assessments. Of 26eyes, VCDR assessment was not possible in 10/26 (38.4%) of the examinations, in (3/26, 11.5%) examinations withArclight, in 0/26 examinations with D-Eye. Ease of use score was higher for Arclight and D-Eye than Heine. D-Eye hada relatively larger field of view than other 2 devices. Heine ranked first in color rendition. The luminance level of thehigh-beam setting of Arclight was more than twice that of Heine and D-Eye. Despite that, the patients reportedexperiencing uncomfortable glare in Heine (14/26, 53.8%), significant glare with Arclight (16/26, 61.5%) and some/noglare with D-Eye. The examination time was shorter when using D-Eye. Overall, D-Eye scored better in most of theevaluation items followed by Arclight.
机译：使用直接眼镜镜视网膜检查是优选的，因为它是筛选目的的其他技术尽管其权力可持续性和成本问题，但便携性和高放大率。越来越多的低成本可持续设备在市场上提供，重要的是评估设备的功效。我们比较三个器件 - arclight眼科检查，连接到iPhone 6的D-Ey眼，以及常规的Ophthalmoscope Heine K180 - In易于检查，使用，视野，颜色再现，患者舒适，检查长度和近距离的术语眼睛。两位训练有素的验光师检查26个未介绍的眼睛，易于视网膜检查，易用性并评估垂直杯：盘比（VCDR）。患者在光线产生的眩光方面报告了他们的舒适程度来源，检查和近乎眼睛的近长。审查员对所有评估有良好的一致意见。 26.眼睛，在10/26（38.4％）的考试中，VCDR评估是不可能的，（3/26,11.5％）考试arclight，在0/26考试中进行D-Eye。对于曲线和D-Eye而不是Heine的易用性得分更高。 D-Eye有比其他2个设备相对较大的视野。 Heine在彩色方面排名第一。亮度水平arclight的高光束设置超过了Heine和D-Eye的两倍。尽管如此，患者报告在Heine（14/26,53.8％）中经历不舒服的眩光，具有arclight的显着眩光（16/26,61.5％）和一些/没有用D-Eye眩光。使用D-Eye时，检查时间较短。总体而言，D-Eye在大多数情况下得分更好评估项目随后是arclight。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号