Search

Purpose: To investigate the agreement between Pentacam and CASIA2 in the evaluation of corneal densities (CDs) and lens densities (LDs) in myopes. Methods: Fifty-three patients (106 eyes) underwent comprehensive ophthalmologic examinations. CDs and LDs were measured using Pentacam and CASIA2, respectively, based on the grayscale percentage of the obtained images. Agreement between Pentacam and CASIA2 was evaluated using the consistency intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and represented using Bland-Altman plots. Results: Compared to Pentacam, CASIA2 showed significantly higher CD and LD values in all measured zones. The ICC of the average CD and LD measured by the Pentacam and CASIA2 were 0.726 and 0.757, respectively. The ICC values of all corneal zones and lenses were above 0.7, except for the measurement of the cornea in the 0–2 mm zone (0.455), suggesting good consistency between the two devices, whose results were of different levels of linear correlation. Bland-Altman plots showed mean percentages of 3.93% for the points falling outside the limits of agreement among the densitometry results. The ICCs in different age groups were similar, but the agreement was poorer in the high myopia group (low and moderate myopia, CD: 0.739, LD: 0.753; high myopia, CD: 0.621, LD: 0.760). Conclusions: CASIA2 demonstrated good consistency with Pentacam in the measurement of CD and LD, except for measurement of CD in the central cornea and in high myopia. Despite difference in the numerical results compared with Pentacam, which made the two devices uninterchangeable, CASIA2 provides a reliable alternative densitometric measurement method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To investigate the agreement between a mobile applet‐based visual acuity (VA) self‐test program and the conventional VA tests. Methods: This consecutive case series study included 121 children and adults (242 eyes). Patients were classified into three groups according to age (children, adolescents, and adults). They underwent uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) testing, distance visual acuity with available spectacle correction (DVA with ASC) testing at 2.5‐m distance, uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) testing, and near visual acuity with available spectacle correction (NVA with ASC) testing at a 0.4‐m distance using a mobile applet‐based VA self‐test program and conventional VA tests in two eyes. Results: Correlations among UDVA, DVA with ASC, UNVA, and NVA with ASC between the two methods were significant in all subjects (all p < 0.001). The intraclass correlation coefficient were 0.960, 0.845, 0.960, and 0.669, respectively (all p < 0.001). The proportions of bias outside the 95% confidence interval limit of agreements were 6.20%, 4.82%, 7.08%, and 6.10%, respectively. There were significant differences in NVA with ASC between the two methods (p < 0.05) in the adolescent group, but no differences in measured parameters were found among children and adult groups. Conclusions: There is good agreement between the mobile applet‐based VA self‐test program and the conventional VA tests. The VA self‐test has good practical value especially in the current pandemic, allowing self‐screening of visual acuity, myopia control, and remote management of visual impairment in ocular morbidity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]