Importance: @entity1 with intermediate @entity1020 ( @entity1020 ) using a home monitoring device have @entity227 , on average, at detection of @entity1940 than do individuals using standard care monitoring techniques. Understanding the frequency with which @entity1 are likely to initiate using a home monitoring device successfully is important in planning implementation of the device into practice. Objectives: To determine the frequency with which @entity1 with intermediate @entity1020 qualify to use a home monitoring device and to establish a reliable baseline reference value with the device to monitor their @entity1020 for progression to @entity1940 . Design, Setting, and @entity1 : Between October 8, 2010, and May 20, 2011, a total of 131 eligible @entity1 within a university-based retina practice with intermediate @entity1020 in the study eye and visual acuity of 20/63 or better completed an in-clinic qualification test for the home device. Intermediate @entity1020 was defined as multiple intermediate-sized drusen or at least 1 large druse. If both eyes were eligible, the eye with better visual acuity was selected as the study eye. If both eyes had the same visual acuity, the @entity1 used the eye with subjectively better vision. Analysis was performed between August 1, 2011, and January 11, 2014. Main Outcomes and Measures: The proportion of @entity1 with reliable qualification test results and a test score predictive of successful home use of a monitoring device for detecting @entity1020 , and the proportion who established a baseline reference value at home. Results: A total of 129 @entity1 (98.5%; 95% CI, 96.4%-99.9%) had reliable qualification test results; 91 @entity1 (69.5%; 95% CI, 61.6%-77.4%) who completed this test attained a score that suggested they would be able to successfully use the home device. Among the 91 @entity1 who could initiate home testing, 83 did so, including 80 @entity1 (87.9%; 95% CI, 81.2%-94.6%) who established a baseline value that could be used as a reference for future monitoring. Younger @entity1 were more likely to qualify for home testing (mean [SD] age, 73.1 [8.4] vs 81.1 [7.1] years; P   <   .001). Visual acuity at study enrollment did not appear to be associated with successful qualification (mean visual acuity for those who did and did not qualify was 20/28 and 20/31, respectively; P   =   .10). Conclusions and Relevance: These data suggest that the in-office qualification test is a useful screening tool to identify @entity1 who may benefit from the home device. In any given retina practice, our data suggest an estimated 61.6% to 77.4% of @entity1 with intermediate @entity1020 should be able to produce reliable initial test results in the office test using the home monitoring device and pass a qualification test to initiate home monitoring. Subsequently, 81.2% to 94.6% of @entity1 should be able to establish a home baseline reference value for future monitoring.

Qualifying to Use a Home Monitoring Device for Detection of Neovascular Age-Related XXXX .

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['participants', 'Patients', 'patients', 'patient', 'Participants'] @entity1020 :: ('MESH:D008268', 'Disease') :: ['neovascular AMD', 'AMD', 'age-related macular degeneration'] @entity227 :: ('MESH:D014786', 'Disease') :: ['less loss of visual acuity'] @entity1940 :: ('MESH:D020256', 'Disease') :: ['choroidal neovascularization']
@entity1020 :: (MESH:D008268,Disease) :: ['Macular Degeneration']
