Efficacy of a remote based computerised visual acuity measurement

British Journal of Ophthalmology

Volumn 96, Issue 7, 2012, Pages 987-990

  Srinivasan, Krithica ^a   Ramesh, S Ve ^a   Babu, Noushad ^a   Sanker, Nijil ^a   Ray, Avik ^a   Karuna, S M ^a  

^a MANIPAL UNIVERSITY   (India)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; ONLINE SYSTEM; OPTOMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RELIABILITY; REMOTE SENSING; SCREENING TEST; TELECOMMUNICATION; TELEMEDICINE; VISION TEST; VISUAL ACUITY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; DIAGNOSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERNET; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; QUESTIONNAIRES; REMOTE CONSULTATION; VISION DISORDERS; VISION SCREENING; VISUAL ACUITY; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84862852966     PISSN: 00071161     EISSN: 14682079     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2012-301751     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Resnikoff S, Pascolini D, Etya'ale D, et al. Global data on visual impairment in the year 2002. Bull WHO 2004;82:844-51. (Pubitemid 39573742)
2. WHO. New estimates of visual impairment and blindness: 2010. http://www.who.int/blindness/estimates2011.pdf (accessed Mar 2012).
3. Thomas R, Paul P, Rao GN, et al. Present status of eye care in India. Surv Opthalmol 2005;50:85-101. (Pubitemid 40038565)
4. Sathyamangalam RV, Paul PG, George R, et al. Determinants of glaucoma awareness and knowledge in urban Chennai. Indian J Ophthalmol 2009;57:355-60.
5. Holden BA, Rao GN, Knox KM, et al. Visual impairment: a correctable global problem. Med J Aust 1997;167:351-2. (Pubitemid 27464531)
6. Sima C, Raman R, Reddy R, et al. Vital signs services for secure telemedicine applications. Proc AMIA Sump 1998;36:1-5.
7. Hussain B, Saleh GM, Sivaprasad S, et al. Changing from snellen to logMAR: debate or delay? Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2006;34:6-8. (Pubitemid 43379363)
8. Falkentein JA, Chochran DE, Azen SP, et al. Comparison of visual acuity in macular degeneration patients measured with snellen and early treatment for diabetic retinopathy study charts. Ophthalmology 2008;115:319-23. (Pubitemid 351163370)
9. Laidlaw DA, Tailor V, Shah N, et al. Validation of a computerised logMAR visual acuity measurement system (COMPlog): comparison with ETDRS and the electronic ETDRS testing algorithm in adults and amblyopic children. Br J Ophthalmol 2008;92:241-4. (Pubitemid 351224103)
10. Raman R, Rani PK, Mahajan S, et al. The tele-screening model for diabetic retinopathy; evaluating the influence of mydriasis on the gradability of a single-field 45 degrees digital fundus image. Telemed J E Health 2007;13:597-602.
11. Monica Raja BS, Dharani R, Krithica S, et al. Development of new visual acuity screener and its efficiency. Sci J Med Vis Res Foun 2011;XXIX:41-4.
12. Lovie-Kitchin J. Validity and reliability of visual acuity measurements. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1988;8:363-70.
13. Rani PK, Raman R, Manikandan M, et al. Patient satisfaction with teleophthalmology versus ophthalmologist-based screening in diabetic retinopathy. J Telemed Telecare 2006;12:159-60.