The evaluation of two new computer-based tests for measurement of aniseikonia: discussion.
OBJECTIVE
To discuss the clinical relevance of the article with the same name by authors R.J. Fullard, R.P. Rutstein and D.A. Corliss.


METHODS
The results of the authors are compared to clinical relevant aniseikonia values. Also, the (in)accuracy of the analysis is questioned.


RESULTS
The authors used an aniseikonia test range (-3.5% to 3.5%) that for the most part will not give symptoms. The measurement results show deviations from the expected aniseikonia values in the order of 0.3%, which is not clinically significant. The repeatability values found (approximately 0.5%) are small enough for clinically useful aniseikonia management. More accurate results could have been obtained if the accuracy of the the size lenses would have been taken into account.


CONCLUSIONS
When considering the clinical relevance of the findings in the article, it becomes clear that the Aniseikonia Inspector is a useful (and only) tool for complete aniseikonia management.
de Wit
Gerhard C
GC
D000839:Aniseikonia / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000503:physiopathology; D003936:Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D015588:Observer Variation; D010775:Photic Stimulation; D012029:Refraction, Ocular / Q000502:physiology; D015203:Reproducibility of Results