Posters

Review on existing smartphone mobile applications for toric intraocular lens technology

Poster Details

First Author: Y.Scantling-Birch UK

Co Author(s):    H. Naveed   H. Lee   M. Nanavaty              

Abstract Details

Purpose:

With the advancement in intraocular lens (IOL) technologies, surgeons are now able to correct for greater levels of astigmatism with more sophisticated toric lenses and calculation formulas. Precise preoperative assessment for patients undergoing such treatment is of paramount importance. Tailored smartphone applications (apps) incorporating mathematical software can assist in the calculations to perform accurate preoperative planning. These applications are becoming increasingly common and popular in ophthalmology and provide easy information access, increase efficiency and reduce error. The goals of this review were to identify and evaluate the quality of apps currently available and to assess the existing literature on these.

Setting:

Sussex Eye Hospital, Brighton, UK

Methods:

Google Play™ and Apple App Store® were searched in the English language using the following terms: toric lens, astigmatism, ophthalmology, eye and calculator. Our search criteria included both free and paid apps that would directly assist in the selection of toric IOLs. Apps were scored between two observers using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS). MARS is a validated 23-item tool that scores the quality of mobile health apps using a 5-point Likert scale in the following domains: engagement, functionality, aesthetics and information quality and global quality. PubMed and Medline were searched to find any published literature on each app.

Results:

Two independent observers identified 11 smartphone apps for toric IOLs. Three apps pertained to axis marking/identifying and eight apps were toric IOL calculators. The mean global app quality ranged from 2.25 (worst app) to 4.00 (best app) on MARS. Overall, the 11 apps obtained a mean Likert score of 3.02 (SD 0.65). The best-rated section was information quality (mean: 3.89, SD: 0.93) and the worst-rated section was engagement (mean: 2.00, SD: 1.00). Four of these apps were available after purchase – costing between £1.99 to £4.99 maximum. Literature search revealed only one article published regarding an axis marking app.

Conclusions:

Android axis marking app – iToric Patwardhan – scored highest, whilst Apple axis marking app – Axis Marker – scored lowest in all four domains on the MARS. Apps that assist with toric IOL calculations are proving to be a popular concept in ophthalmology due to the ease of access, simplicity and reduction in user error, which are still evolving. There is a paucity in the literature examining the clinical efficacy of the available apps. Future studies should strive to validate the use of these applications in clinical practice and encourage the digital community for further development of similar applications.

Financial Disclosure:

None