1. Aier School of Ophthalmology, Central South University, Changsha 410015, China; 2. Aier Institute of Optometry & Vision Science, Changsha 410015, China; 3. Aier School of Optometry, Hubei University of Science and Technology, Xianning 437000, China; 4. Glasson Technology Co., Ltd, Hangzhou 310012, China
Objective To evaluate the accuracy and stability of the novel device ClouclipTM (Glasson Technology Co., Ltd, Hangzhou, China) designed to record myopic environmental risks. Methods This experimental study consisted of static and dynamic evaluations. In the static evaluation, 15 devices were randomly selected to measure working distances and ambient illuminance and ultraviolet radiation. The device with the greatest measurement error was chosen to represent the accuracy, while the variance of the measurement error among all devices was utilized to assess the stability. In the dynamic evaluation, 30 volunteers were enrolled to wear the devices for two days. They were requested to report the environmental features dynamically via social media (Wechat), including the time of doing or not doing near-work, outdoor or indoor activities, and wearing or not wearing of the device. The data reported by the subjects were compared with the data detected by ClouclipTM to further evaluate the accuracy. Pearson and Bland-Altman analysis were used to assess the accuracy of the ClouclipTM. Results For the static evaluation: there was significant correlation between the measured and actual values both in distance and illuminance (r=0.998, P＜0.001 and r=0.999, P＜0.001, respectively). The 95% limit of agreement in working distance and illuminance was 0.18-3.10 cm and 1.02-1.35 lx, respectively. The relative errors for working distance and illuminance were 2.4%-6.5% and 8.9%-20.0%, respectively. The coefficient of variance among all samples was 2.3%-4.3% for working distance and 0.4%-5.6% for illuminance. The rate of correct ultraviolet radiation detection was 100% for all samples. For the dynamic evaluation, the rate of correctly identifying near or far work, indoor or outdoor environment and the wearing or not wearing status was 94.6%, 96.5% and 96.0%, respectively. Conclusion ClouclipTM was able to not only record myopic environmental risks with satisfactory accuracy and stability, but it was also able to determine the temporal pattern for these risk factors. It therefore provides a valuable tool to investigate the role of environmental factors in myopia pathogenesis.
Mutti DO, Zadnic K. Has near work′s star fallen?[J]. Optom Vis Sci, 2009, 86(2): 76-78. DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e31819974ae.
[2]
Huang HM, Chang DS, Wu PC. The association between near work activities and myopia in children—a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. PLos One, 2015, 10(10): e0140419. DOI: 10.137/ journal.pone.0140419.
Morgan IG, Ohno-Matsui K, Saw SM. Myopia[J]. The Lancet, 2012, 379(9827): 1739-1748. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60272-4.
[7]
Wallman J, Turkel J, Trachtman J. Extreme myopia produced by modest change in early visual experience[J]. Science, 1978, 201(4362): 1249-1251.
[8]
Wiesel TN, Raviola E. Myopia and eye enlargement after neonatal lid fusion in monkeys[J]. Nature, 1977, 266(5597): 66-68.
[9]
Schaeffel F, Glasser A, Howland HC. Accommodation, refractive error and eye growth in chickens[J]. Vision Res, 1988, 285(5):639-657.
[10]
Winawer J, Wallman J. Temporal constraints on lens compensation in chicks[J]. Vision Res, 2002, 42(24): 2651-2668.
[11]
Zhu X. Temporal integration of visual signals in lens compensation (a review)[J]. Exp Eye Res, 2013, 114: 69-76. DOI: 10.1016/j.exer.2013.02.014.
[12]
Zhi Z, Pan M, Xie R, et al. The effect of temporal and spatial stimuli on the refractive status of guinea pigs following natural emmetropization[J]. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2013, 54(1): 890- 897. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.11-8064.
[13]
McBrien NA, Arumugam B, Metlapally S. The effect of daily transient +4 D positive lens wear on the inhibition of myopia in the tree shrew[J]. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2012, 53(3): 1593-1601. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.11-7859.
[14]
Lan W, Feldkaemper M, Schaeffel F. Intermittent episodes of bright light suppress myopia in the chicken more than continuous bright light[J]. PLoS One, 2014, 9(10): e110906. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0110906.
[15]
Ashby R, Ohlendorf A, Schaeffel F. The effect of ambient illuminance on the development of deprivation myopia in chicks[J]. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2009, 50(11): 5348-5354. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.09-3419.
[16]
Dharani R, Lee CF, Theng ZX, et al. Comparison of measurements of time outdoors light levels as risk factors for myopia in young singapore children[J]. Eye (Lond), 2012, 26(7): 911-918. DOI: 10.1038/eye.2012.49.
[17]
Ostrin LA. Objectively measured light exposure in emmetropic and myopic adults[J]. Optom Vis Sci, 2017, 94(2):229-238. DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000001013.
浙公网安备 33030202001892号