Saratov JOURNAL of Medical and Scientific Research

Clinical regulation of asthenopia severity based on the "CVS-22" quality of life questionnaire for patients with computer visual syndrome


Abstract. Objective: clinical regulation of the severity of asthenopia based on the data of the questionnaire for the quality of life of patients with computer visual syndrome "CVS-22". Material and methods. Under supervision there were 204 patients with "normal" indicators of objective accommodation and not presenting asthenopic complaints, as well as with symptoms of accommodative asthenopia. All patients were once examined according to the "CVS-22" questionnaire with the calculation of the total test indicator (TTI). The basis for clinical normalization was the analysis of the indicators of sensitivity (ISEN) and specificity (ISP) with the formation of standard ROC curves. Results. The "area" under the ROC curve was 0.939, which indicates the "excellent" predictive quality of the model. At the point of maximum ISEN (83%) and ISP (86%), the value of TTI was 175 points, which determines this value from the position of "norm". The final check of the developed model showed the required and sufficiently high ISEN (82% and 87%) and ISP (83% and 86%) with differences in TTI from the "norm" to "compensation" and from "compensation" to "decompensation" of asthenopia, respectively. Conclusion. The following normative indicators of asthenopia were determined: "norm" — more than 175 points; "compensation" — less than 175, but not less than 147 points; "decompensation" — less than 147 points. At the same time, these indicators do not depend on the type of accommodative asthenopia (habitual excessive stress of accommodation or asthenic form).

1. Porcar Е, Pons AM, Lorente A. Visual and ocular effects from the use of flat-panel displays. Int J Ophthalmol. 2016; 9 (6): 881-5. DOI: 10.18240/ijo.2016.06.16.
2. Proskurina OV, Tarutta EP, lomdina EN, et al. A modern classification of asthenopias: clinical forms and stages. Russian Ophthalmological Journal. 2016; 9 (4): 69-73.DOI: 10.21516/2072-0076-2016-9-4-69-73.
3. Makhova MV, Strakhov VV. Interaction of accommodative and subjective diagnostic criteria of accommodation disorders. Russian Ophthalmological Journal. 2019; 12 (3): 13-9. DOI: 10.21516/2072-0076-2 019-12-3-13-19.
4. Segui Mdel М, Cabrero-Garcia J, Crespo A, et al. A reliable and valid questionnaire was developed to measure computer vision syndrome at the workplace. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015; 68 (6): 662-73. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.01.015.
5. Traipe L, Gauro F, Goya MC, et al. [Validation of the Ocular Surface Disease Index Questionnaire for Chilean patients]. Rev Med Chil. 2020; 148 (2): 187-95. DOI: 10.4067/s0034-98872020000200187.
6. Ovechkin IG, Yudin VE, Kovrigina El, et al. Methodological principles for the development of a questionnaire «Quality of Life» in patients with computer visual syndrome. Ophthalmology in Russia. 2021; 18 (4): 926-31.DOI: 10.18008/1816-5095-2021-4-926-931.
7. Xue WW, Zou HD. [Rasch analysis of the Chinese Version of the Low Vision Quality of Life Questionnaire]. Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi. 2019; 55 (8): 582-8. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn. 0412-4081.2019.08.007.
8. Korotkikh SA, NikiforovAA. Investigation of the reliability and validity of the questionnaire for the quantitative assessment of asthenopic complaints of computer visual syndrome. Modern optometry = Sovremennaya optometriya. 2017; 8: 18-22. DOI: 10.1177/20503121221142402.
10. Kovrigina El, Ovechkin IG, Konovalov ME, Yudin VE. Clinical efficacy of different methods for assessing the quality of life in patients with computer visual syndrome. Saratov Journal of Medical Scientific Research. 2021; 17 (3): 646-9.

2022_04-1_691-694.pdf424.67 KB

No votes yet