Taylor John J, Bambrick Rachel, Brand Andrew, Bray Nathan, Dutton Michelle, Harper Robert A, Hoare Zoe, Ryan Barbara, Edwards Rhiannon T, Waterman Heather, Dickinson Christine
Division of Pharmacy and Optometry, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Manchester Royal Eye Hospital, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2017 Jul;37(4):370-384. doi: 10.1111/opo.12379. Epub 2017 May 12.
To compare the performance of near vision activities using additional portable electronic vision enhancement systems (p-EVES), to using optical magnifiers alone, by individuals with visual impairment.
A total of 100 experienced optical aid users were recruited from low vision clinics at Manchester Royal Eye Hospital, Manchester, UK, to a prospective two-arm cross-over randomised controlled trial. Reading, performance of near vision activities, and device usage were evaluated at baseline; and at the end of each study arm (Intervention A: existing optical aids plus p-EVES; Intervention B: optical aids only) which was after 2 and 4 months.
A total of 82 participants completed the study. Overall, maximum reading speed for high contrast sentences was not statistically significantly different for optical aids and p-EVES, although the critical print size and threshold print size which could be accessed with p-EVES were statistically significantly smaller (p < 0.001 in both cases). The optical aids were used for a larger number of tasks (p < 0.001), and used more frequently (p < 0.001). However p-EVES were preferred for leisure reading by 70% of participants, and allowed longer duration of reading (p < 0.001). During the study arm when they had a p-EVES device, participants were able to carry out more tasks independently (p < 0.001), and reported less difficulty with a range of near vision activities (p < 0.001).
The study provides evidence that p-EVES devices can play a useful role in supplementing the range of low vision aids used to reduce activity limitation for near vision tasks.
比较视力受损者使用额外的便携式电子视力增强系统(p-EVES)与仅使用光学放大镜进行近视力活动的表现。
从英国曼彻斯特皇家眼科医院的低视力诊所招募了100名有经验的光学辅助器具使用者,进行一项前瞻性双臂交叉随机对照试验。在基线时以及每个研究阶段结束时(干预A:现有光学辅助器具加p-EVES;干预B:仅光学辅助器具)对阅读、近视力活动表现和设备使用情况进行评估,干预阶段结束时间分别为2个月和4个月后。
共有82名参与者完成了研究。总体而言,对于高对比度句子,光学辅助器具和p-EVES的最大阅读速度在统计学上没有显著差异,尽管使用p-EVES能够看清的临界印刷字体大小和阈值印刷字体大小在统计学上显著更小(两种情况均p < 0.001)。光学辅助器具用于更多的任务(p < 0.001),且使用频率更高(p < 0.001)。然而,70%的参与者在休闲阅读时更喜欢p-EVES,并且使用p-EVES时的阅读持续时间更长(p < 0.001)。在使用p-EVES设备的研究阶段,参与者能够更独立地完成更多任务(p < 0.001),并且在一系列近视力活动中报告的困难更少(p < 0.001)。
该研究提供了证据,表明p-EVES设备在补充用于减少近视力任务活动限制的低视力辅助器具范围方面可以发挥有益作用。