4.7 Article

Effect of Smartphone Use on Intraocular Pressure

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-55406-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. Seoul National University Bundang Hospital Research Fund [02-2016-023]
  2. Basic Science Research program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology, Seoul, South Korea [2016R1D1A1B02011696]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2016R1D1A1B02011696] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The rapidly increasing utilization of smartphones makes ophthalmic problems associated with their use an important issue. This prospective study aimed to determine whether using a smartphone to view visual material is associated with a change in the intraocular pressure (IOP), and to determine which groups of factors best predict the time-dependent increase in IOP with smartphone use. This study included 158 eyes (127 glaucomatous and 31 healthy eyes) recruited from Seoul National University Bundang Hospital. Participants performed a sustained fixation task consisting of watching a movie on a smartphone screen for 30 minutes continuously at a viewing distance of 30cm. A small but statistically significant time-dependent increase in lOP was observed while viewing a movie on a smartphone, being 10.6 +/- 3.1, 11.0 +/- 3.3, 11.2 +/- 3.4, and 11.6 +/- 3.5 mmHg before and 5, 10, and 30 minutes after the fixation task, respectively (P < 0.0001). Recursive partitioning tree analysis revealed that a shallower anterior chamber (<2.32 mm) was the strongest predictive factor for faster time-dependent increase in 10P (0.68 mmHg/minute). A higher visual field mean deviation (>=-0.22 dB), and an older age (>= 48 years) were the second and third most influential factors associated with the rate of lOP increase (0.59 and 0.15 mmHg/minute, respectively).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据