Further Validation of Comfortable Print Size as a Parameter for Clinical Low-Vision Assessment.

Purpose: Comfortable print size (CfPS) has been proposed as a clinical alternative to deriving critical print size (CPS) in the assessment of reading function of vision-impaired patients. This study aimed to assess the repeatability of CfPS and to compare assessment duration and values to CPS measures and acuity reserves. Methods: Thirty-four adults with vision impairment had their reading function assessed. Two assessments of CfPS were made by asking, "What is the smallest print size that you would find comfortable using?" Reading parameters including CPS were determined using the MNREAD card chart and MNREAD app. Results: CfPS was quicker to assess (mean ± SD, 144 ± 77 seconds) than the MNREAD card (231 ± 177 seconds) or app (285 ± 43 seconds). Within-session repeatability of CfPS showed no significant bias or variation across the functional range and limits of agreement (LoA) of ±0.09 logMAR. CfPS values were 0.10 logMAR larger than card CPS values, but no different from app CPS values, with LoA of ±0.43 to 0.45 logMAR. Acuity reserve (comparing CfPS to card reading acuity) was 1.9:1 on average, with a maximum of 5.0:1. Conclusions: CfPS offers a quick, repeatable, and individualized clinical measure of the print size required for sustained reading that reflects CPS values obtained by more traditional measures. Translational Relevance: CfPS is an appropriate clinical measure of reading function to use in determining the magnification requirements of vision impaired patients for sustained reading tasks.

Can listening provide a useful clinical estimate of low vision reading parameters?

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether a clinician can assess critical print size (CPS) and/or reading fluency by listening to a visually impaired patient reading aloud across a range of print sizes on an MNREAD chart, rather than needing to plot and analyse reading speed data as a function of print size. METHODS: Fifty-six low vision participants were audio-recorded reading an MNREAD chart under standard conditions. Two experienced raters listened to the recordings and made judgments of the CPS (logMAR), and of the level of reading fluency achieved at large print sizes on a 4-point rating scale. Reading times were plotted as a function of print size to determine the CPS as the smallest print size that supported the participant's maximum reading speed (MRS) by inspection, and the MRS as the mean reading speed across print sizes including, and larger than, the CPS. RESULTS: Listened CPS judgments made for each rater were slightly larger than the CPS values obtained by inspection (mean differences 0.04logMAR (p = 0.06), 0.08logMAR (p < 0.01); limits of agreement (LoA) ±0.28logMAR, ±0.39logMAR, respectively). CPS judgments were consistent both between raters (mean difference 0.04logMAR [p = 0.18]; LoA ±0.42logMAR) and between two judgments made by each rater (mean differences 0.00logMAR (p = 1.0), 0.03logMAR (p < 0.05); LoA ±0.23logMAR, ±0.17logMAR). Reading fluency could be categorised as 'functional' (MRS > 80 wpm) or 'non-functional' (MRS < 80 wpm) with a sensitivity of 88%-90% and a specificity of 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Experienced raters listening to a patient reading an MNREAD chart can determine a clinically useful estimate of critical print size and can discriminate maximum reading speeds that are above and below that likely to provide sustained reading ability. Listening to a patient reading an MNREAD chart is an option for the low vision clinician's armoury of assessments.

Functional visual fields: a cross-sectional UK study to determine which visual field paradigms best reflect difficulty with mobility function.

OBJECTIVES: To develop an appropriate method of assessing visual field (VF) loss which reflects its functional consequences, this study aims to determine which method(s) of assessing VF best reflect mobility difficulty. SETTING: This cross-sectional observational study took place within a single primary care setting. Participants attended a single session at a University Eye Clinic, Cambridge, UK, with data collected by a single researcher (HS), a qualified optometrist. PARTICIPANTS: 50 adult participants with peripheral field impairment were recruited for this study. Individuals with conditions not primarily affecting peripheral visual function, such as macular degeneration, were excluded from the study. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants undertook three custom and one standard binocular VF tests assessing VF to 60°, and also integrated monocular threshold 24-2 visual fields (IVF). Primary VF outcomes were average mean threshold, percentage of stimuli seen and VF area. VF outcomes were compared with self-reported mobility function assessed with the Independent Mobility Questionnaire, and time taken and patient acceptability were also considered. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves determined which tests best predicted difficulty with mobility tasks. RESULTS: Greater VF loss was associated with greater self-reported mobility difficulty with all field paradigms (R2 0.38-0.48, all P<0.001). All four binocular tests were better than the IVF at predicting difficulty with at least three mobility tasks in ROC analysis. Mean duration of the tests ranged from 1 min 26 s (±9 s) for kinetic assessment to 9 min 23 s (±24 s) for IVF. CONCLUSIONS: The binocular VF tests extending to 60° eccentricity all relate similarly to self-reported mobility function, and slightly better than integrated monocular VFs. A kinetic assessment of VF area is quicker than and as effective at predicting mobility function as static threshold assessment.

Functional visual fields: relationship of visual field areas to self-reported function.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to relate areas of the visual field to functional difficulties to inform the development of a binocular visual field assessment that can reflect the functional consequences of visual field loss. METHODS: Fifty-two participants with peripheral visual field loss undertook binocular assessment of visual fields using the 30-2 and 60-4 SITA Fast programs on the Humphrey Field Analyser, and mean thresholds were derived. Binocular visual acuity, contrast sensitivity and near reading performance were also determined. Self-reported overall and mobility function were assessed using the Dutch ICF Activity Inventory. RESULTS: Greater visual field loss (0-60°) was associated with worse self-reported function both overall (R2 = 0.50; p < 0.0001), and for mobility (R2 = 0.64; p < 0.0001). Central (0-30°) and peripheral (30-60°) visual field areas were similarly related to mobility function (R2 = 0.61, p < 0.0001 and R2 = 0.63, p < 0.0001 respectively), although the peripheral (30-60°) visual field was the best predictor of mobility self-reported function in multiple regression analyses. Superior and inferior visual field areas related similarly to mobility function (R2 = 0.56, p < 0.0001 and R2 = 0.67, p < 0.0001 respectively). The inferior field was found to be the best predictor of mobility function in multiple regression analysis. CONCLUSION: Mean threshold of the binocular visual field to 60° eccentricity is a good predictor of self-reported function overall, and particularly of mobility function. Both the central (0-30°) and peripheral (30-60°) mean threshold are good predictors of self-reported function, but the peripheral (30-0°) field is a slightly better predictor of mobility function, and should not be ignored when considering functional consequences of field loss. The inferior visual field is a slightly stronger predictor of perceived overall and mobility function than the superior field.