Anterior eye health recording.

AIMS: To survey eye care practitioners from around the world regarding their current practice for anterior eye health recording to inform guidelines on best practice. METHODS: The on-line survey examined the reported use of: word descriptions, sketching, grading scales or photographs; paper or computerised record cards and whether these were guided by proforma headings; grading scale choice, signs graded, level of precision, regional grading; and how much time eye care practitioners spent on average on anterior eye health recording. RESULTS: Eight hundred and nine eye care practitioners from across the world completed the survey. Word description (p<0.001), sketches (p=0.002) and grading scales (p<0.001) were used more for recording the anterior eye health of contact lens patients than other patients, but photography was used similarly (p=0.132). Of the respondents, 84.5% used a grading scale, 13.5% using two, with the original Efron (51.6%) and CCLRU/Brien-Holden-Vision-Institute (48.5%) being the most popular. The median features graded was 11 (range 1-23), frequency from 91.6% (bulbar hyperaemia) to 19.6% (endothelial blebs), with most practitioners grading to the nearest unit (47.4%) and just 14.7% to one decimal place. The average time taken to report anterior eye health was reported to be 6.8±5.7 min, with the maximum time available 14.0±11 min. CONCLUSIONS: Developed practice and research evidence allows best practice guidelines for anterior eye health recording to be recommended. It is recommended to: record which grading scale is used; always grade to one decimal place, record what you see live rather than based on how you intend to manage a condition; grade bulbar and limbal hyperaemia, limbal neovascularisation, conjunctival papillary redness and roughness (in white light to assess colouration with fluorescein instilled to aid visualisation of papillae/follicles), blepharitis, meibomian gland dysfunction and sketch staining (both corneal and conjunctival) at every visit. Record other anterior eye features only if they are remarkable, but indicate that the key tissue which have been examined

BCLA Pioneers Lecture - evidence basis for patient selection:how to predict contact lens success

Editoria

Usability of prostaglandin monotherapy eye droppers

AIM: To determine the force needed to extract a drop from a range of current prostaglandin monotherapy eye droppers and how this related to the comfortable and maximum pressure subjects could exert. METHODS: The comfortable and maximum pressure subjects could apply to an eye dropper constructed around a set of cantilevered pressure sensors and mounted above their eye was assessed in 102 subjects (mean 51.2±18.7 years), repeated three times. A load cell amplifier, mounted on a stepper motor controlled linear slide, was constructed and calibrated to test the force required to extract the first three drops from 13 multidose or unidose latanoprost medication eye droppers. RESULTS: The pressure that could be exerted on a dropper comfortably (25.9±17.7 Newtons, range 1.2-87.4) could be exceeded with effort (to 64.8±27.1 Newtons, range 19.9-157.8; F=19.045, p<0.001), and did not differ between repeats (F=0.609, p=0.545). Comfortable and maximum pressures exerted were correlated (r=0.618, p<0.001), neither were influenced strongly by age (r=0.138, p=0.168; r=-0.118, p=0237, respectively), but were lower in women than in men (F=12.757, p=0.001). The force required to expel a drop differed between dropper designs (F=22.528, p<0.001), ranging from 6.4 Newtons to 23.4 Newtons. The force needed to exert successive drops increased (F=36.373, p<0.001) and storing droppers in the fridge further increased the force required (F=7.987, p=0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Prostaglandin monotherapy droppers for glaucoma treatment vary in their resistance to extract a drop and with some a drop could not be comfortably achieved by half the population, which may affect compliance and efficacy

Mobile app reading speed test

Aim: To validate the accuracy and repeatability of a mobile app reading speed test compared with the traditional paper version. Method: Twenty-one subjects wearing their full refractive correction glasses read 14 sentences of decreasing print size between 1.0 and -0.1 logMAR, each consisting of 14 words (Radner reading speed test) at 40 cm with a paper-based chart and twice on iPad charts. Time duration was recorded with a stop watch for the paper chart and on the App itself for the mobile chart allowing critical print size (CPS) and optimal reading speed (ORS) to be derived objectively. Results: The ORS was higher for the mobile app charts (194±29 wpm; 195±25 wpm) compared with the paper chart (166±20 wpm; F=57.000, p<0.001). The CPS was lower for the mobile app charts (0.17±0.20 logMAR; 0.18±0.17 logMAR) compared with the paper chart (0.25±0.17 logMAR; F=5.406, p=0.009). The mobile app test had a mean difference repeatability of 0.30±22.5 wpm, r=0.917 for ORS, and a CPS of 0.0±0.2 logMAR, r=0.769. Conclusions: Repeatability of the app reading speed test is as good (ORS) or better (CPS) than previous studies on the paper test. While the results are not interchangeable with paper-based charts, mobile app tablet-based tests of reading speed are reliable and rapid to perform, with the potential to capture functional visual ability in research studies and clinical practice

We are being myopic about myopia control

Editoria

Intraocular lenses in the 21st century

Editoria

Digital eye strain:Prevalence, measurement and amelioration

Digital device usage has increased substantially in recent years across all age groups, so that extensive daily use for both social and professional purposes is now normal. Digital eye strain (DES), also known as computer vision syndrome, encompasses a range of ocular and visual symptoms, and estimates suggest its prevalence may be 50% or more among computer users. Symptoms fall into two main categories: those linked to accommodative or binocular vision stress, and external symptoms linked to dry eye. Although symptoms are typically transient, they may be frequent and persistent, and have an economic impact when vocational computer users are affected. DES may be identified and measured using one of several available questionnaires, or objective evaluations of parameters such as critical flicker–fusion frequency, blink rate and completeness, accommodative function and pupil characteristics may be used to provide indices of visual fatigue. Correlations between objective and subjective measures are not always apparent. A range of management approaches exist for DES including correction of refractive error and/or presbyopia, management of dry eye, incorporating regular screen breaks and consideration of vergence and accommodative problems. Recently, several authors have explored the putative role of blue light-filtering spectacle lenses on treating DES, with mixed results. Given the high prevalence of DES and near-universal use of digital devices, it is essential that eye care practitioners are able to provide advice and management options based on quality research evidence

Presbyopic correction use and its impact on quality of vision symptoms

Aim: To assess real-world adoption of presbyopic correction and its impact on quality of vision. Method: The use of visual corrections by 529 sequential patients (aged 36 years to 85 years, 50.4% female) attending 4 optometric practices in diverse areas across London were surveyed by interview and completed the quality of vision (QoV) questionnaire to evaluate visual symptoms. Results: Over half of the population (54.7%) managed without glasses at least some of the time, while between 30 and 40% wore distance, reading and progressive spectacles with those using Progressive Addition Lenses wearing them over 80% of the time, while those wearing reading spectacles only approximately 25% of the time. Age, sex and driving frequency had no effect of QoV (p > 0.05), whereas the distance of the task significantly impacted QoV (p < 0.01). In all QoV metrics, regardless of the far, intermediate or near blur assessment, QoV was rated higher by patients whose main tasks were far focused (n = 231, 43.9%), than those who principally conduct intermediate tasks (n = 165, 31.4%) and worse still for those whose main tasks were near (n = 130, 24.7%), regardless of the form of correction. Conclusion: Majority of tasks are in the distance and these had a higher QoV than intermediate tasks with near focused tasks being even worse. It is important to discuss with patients the principal distance of the tasks they generally perform and the forms of presbyopic correction used from the outset