Biomedical subjects

David B Elliott

Publications and source records attributed to David B Elliott.

21 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

PubMed2002

The effect of refractive blur on postural stability.

The effect of refractive blur upon postural stability was investigated under three conditions: normal standing, standing with input from the somatosensory system disrupted and standing with input from the somatosensory and vestibular systems disrupted. Standing stability was assessed using the centre of pressure (COP) signal from force plate data in four young subjects (mean 23.9+/-3.1 years) and five repeated sets of measurements were taken. The subjects looked straight ahead at a horizontal and vertical square wave pattern of 2.5 cycles (degree)(-1). Under each of the three test conditions, standing stability was measured with the optimal refractive correction and under binocular blur levels of 0, + 1, + 2, + 4, and + 8 D and with eyes closed. In the normal standing condition, dioptric blur had only a mild effect on postural stability. However refractive blur produced large increases in postural instability when input from one or both of the other two sensory systems were disrupted. We hypothesized that dioptric blur would have an even great effect on postural stability if the visual target used was of higher spatial frequency. This was confirmed by repeated measurements on one subject using a target of 8 cycles (degree)(-1). The study highlights the possible importance of an optimal correction to postural stability, particular in situations (or people) where input from the somatosensory and/or vestibular systems are disrupted, and where the visual surrounds are of high spatial frequency.

Adult↗

PubMed2002

The dependency of logMAR visual acuity measurements on chart design and scoring rule.

BACKGROUND: Visual acuity, increasingly measured using a logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) chart, is the "gold standard" by which the outcomes of the vast majority of clinical trials or interventions are judged. To allow comparison of results across studies, it is important that different charts provide equivalent results. METHODS: In a first experiment, we compared corrected visual acuity measurements from four different logMAR charts (Bailey-Lovie, ETDRS, Regan, and Waterloo). In a second experiment we compared unaided visual acuity scored using a psychometric function with the more clinical by-letter scoring. RESULTS: Experiment 1 showed significantly better visual acuity using the Regan chart compared with the other three charts, and further investigation suggested that this could be due to the font type used. Repeatability data from experiment 2 indicated that no extra repeatability was gained when using psychometric methods compared with the far simpler and quicker by-letter scoring. CONCLUSIONS: When comparing findings between studies, the type of chart and the scoring method used may have a significant effect on the results obtained and should therefore be taken into consideration. Also, the additional time and effort demanded for determining a psychometric function for single readings of the Regan visual acuity chart is not rewarded with improved repeatability.

Adult↗

PubMedDate not supplied

A quality of life comparison of people wearing spectacles or contact lenses or having undergone refractive surgery.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate the use of the Quality of Life Impact of Refractive Correction (QIRC) questionnaire for comparing the quality of life of pre-presbyopic individuals with refractive correction by spectacles, contact lenses, or refractive surgery. METHODS: The 20-item QIRC questionnaire was administered to 104 spectacle wearers, 104 contact lens wearers, and 104 individuals who had undergone refractive surgery (N = 312). These groups were similar for gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and refractive error. The main outcome measure was QIRC overall score (scaled from 0 to 100), a measure of refractive correction related quality of life. Groups were compared for overall QIRC score and on each question by analysis of variance, adjusted for age, with post hoc significance testing (Sheffé). RESULTS: On average, refractive surgery patients scored significantly better (mean QIRC score 50.2 +/- 6.3, F(2,309) = 15.18, P < .001) than contact lens wearers (46.7 +/- 5.5, post hoc P < .001) who were in turn significantly better than spectacle wearers (44.1 +/- 5.9, post hoc P < .01). Convenience questions chiefly drove the differences between groups, although functioning, symptoms, economic concerns, heath concerns, and well being were also important. Spectacle wearers with low strength prescriptions (46.18 +/- 5.05) scored significantly better than those with medium strength prescriptions (42.74 +/- 6.08, F(2,190) = 3.66, P < .05, post hoc P < .05). A small number (n = 7, 6.7%) of refractive surgery patients experienced postoperative complications, which impacted quality of life (37.86 +/- 2.13). CONCLUSIONS: Quality of life was lowest in spectacle wearers, particularly those with higher corrections. Contact lens wearers had significantly better QIRC score than spectacle wearers. Refractive surgery patients scored significantly better than both. However, this was accompanied by a small risk of poor quality of life due to postoperative complications. The QIRC is an effective outcome measure for quality of life impact of refractive correction.

Adolescent↗