ArticleClinical & experimental optometry2019
Evaluating the use of a temperature sensor to monitor spectacle compliance in warm versus cold climates.
Article in Clinical & experimental optometry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bluetooth Low Energy Beacon Sensors to Document Handheld Magnifier Use at Home by People with Low Vision.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Objective Assessment of Spectacle Wear in Infants and Toddlers Using a Wearable Sensor.Translational vision science & technology · 2021Article
- Objective Monitoring of Spectacle Wearing Times in Adult Subjects Using the TheramonClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study investigates the utility of a temperature sensor data logger to monitor spectacle compliance for future application in research and clinical settings. Specifically, the question of whether warm versus cold climates negatively impact accuracy of the sensor to monitor spectacle wear is investigated.
methodsFifty adults from Houston, Texas (summer) and 40 adults from Columbus, Ohio (winter) wore a thermosensor on their spectacles for one week while keeping wear-time logs. Temperatures during reported spectacle wear (ON) were compared to temperatures during non-wear (OFF) between sites. Two methods to approximate wear time were evaluated by percent error with respect to subject-reported wear time. Method 1 filtered temperatures, classifying the range of 28.4 to 35.2°C as wear. Method 2 utilised examiners interpreting temperature versus time plots. Separate analysis of periods of reported outdoor wear was performed to identify the percentage of time examiners correctly identified wear.
resultsGroup mean ON temperatures did not differ between sites (p = 0.72), but group mean OFF temperatures were significantly warmer in Houston (Houston: 24.7 ± 2.0°C, Columbus: 20.3 ± 2.1°C; p < 0.0001). Median percent error of the filtering technique to approximate subject reported wear time was 4 per cent for Houston and -8 per cent for Columbus. Median percent error for examiner 1: Houston 1 per cent, Columbus 0 per cent; median percent error for examiner 2: Houston 3 per cent, Columbus 0 per cent. Houston outdoor wear was correctly identified 88 and 97 per cent of the time by the examiners versus 79 and 81 per cent for Columbus.
conclusionDespite environmental temperature differences, measured temperatures during spectacle wear were similar across subjects and median percent error was less than 10 per cent for both wear time approximation methods. The device studied was effective for objectively monitoring spectacle wear in both warm and cold climates with the caveat that subjects spent the majority of time indoors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.