April 2011
Volume 52, Issue 14
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2011
Evaluation Of Reading Ability And Near Vision Satisfaction
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Sunil Shah
    Midland Eye Institute, Birmingham, United Kingdom
  • Phillip J. Buckhurst
    School of Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, United Kingdom
  • James S. Wolffsohn
    School of Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, United Kingdom
  • Shehzad Naroo
    School of Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, United Kingdom
  • Leon N. Davies
    School of Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, United Kingdom
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  Sunil Shah, None; Phillip J. Buckhurst, None; James S. Wolffsohn, None; Shehzad Naroo, None; Leon N. Davies, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2011, Vol.52, 5564. doi:https://doi.org/
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Sunil Shah, Phillip J. Buckhurst, James S. Wolffsohn, Shehzad Naroo, Leon N. Davies; Evaluation Of Reading Ability And Near Vision Satisfaction. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2011;52(14):5564. doi: https://doi.org/.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: : To validate a visual related quality of life questionnaire and to use it to assess the most appropriate metric for assessing reading ability with pseudophakic subjects.

Methods: : Following cataract extraction, 110 patients were implanted bilaterally with monofocal (n=20), concentric refractive multifocal (n=15), concentric diffractive multifocal (n=15), a combination of concentric refractive and diffractive multifocal (n=15), sectorial refractive (n=15) and single-optic accommodative (n=30) IOLs. The MNRead was used to calculate Maximum reading Speed (MRS), Critical Print Size (CPS) and reading acuity (RA). Asymototic curves were fitted to the MNread dataset and a new metric; reading area, was derived using the integration limits of 1.0 logMAR and the RA. Twenty-three previously used near vision questions were reduced and validated using Rasch analysis to create the Near Activity Visual Questionnaire (NAVQ) which was used to compare the reading metrics with subjective near visual ability.

Results: : The reduced NAVQ consisted of 9 items with a Cronbach Alpha coefficent of 0.945, a Rasch separation index of 2.78, reliability index of 0.89 and test-retest reliability of 0.715. A linear regression stepwise model showed that the reading area metric accounted for 57% of the NAVQ assessed subjective near ability, with a further 2% contribution combining it with the CPS. However the calculation of CPS scores was affected by interobserver error (ICC=-0.761). Reading area was greater with all patient groups implanted with multifocal IOLs in comparison with the monofocal IOL group (p=0.001) and the single-optic accommodative IOL group (p<0.050). Reading area was also greater in the sectorial refractive IOL group compared to the concentric refractive IOL group (p=0.038).

Conclusions: : The NAVQ is a valid and repeatable instrument for the assessment of near visual satisfaction with presbyopic corrections. The reading area metric is a new single metric for the assessment of reading vision that correlates well with the subjective rating of near vision and differentiates between multifocal IOL designs.

Keywords: reading • intraocular lens • presbyopia 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×