PURPOSE: To develop a computerized method of visual acuity testing for clinical research as an alternative to the standard Early Treatment for Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) testing protocol, and to evaluate its test-retest reliability and concordance with standard ETDRS testing. DESIGN: Test-retest reliability study. METHODS: Multicenter setting of a study population of 265 patients at three clinical sites. Visual acuity was measured with both the electronic visual acuity testing algorithm (E-ETDRS) and standard ETDRS protocol (S-ETDRS) twice on one eye of each patient. E-ETDRS testing was conducted using the electronic visual acuity tester (EVA), which utilizes a programmed Palm (Palm, Inc, Santa Clara, California, USA) hand-held device communicating with a personal computer and 17-inch monitor at a test distance of 3 meters. RESULTS: For the E-ETDRS protocol, test-retest reliability was high (r = 0.99; with 89% and 98% of retests within 0.1 logMAR and 0.2 logMAR of initial tests, respectively) and comparable with that of S-ETDRS testing (r = 0.99; with 87% and 98% of retests within 0.1 logMAR and 0.2 logMAR of initial test, respectively). The E-ETDRS and S-ETDRS scores were highly correlated (r = 0.96 for initial tests and r = 0.97 for repeat tests). Based on estimates of 95% confidence intervals, a change in visual acuity of 0.2 logMAR (10 letters) from a baseline level is unlikely to be related to measurement variability using either the E-ETDRS or the S-ETDRS visual acuity testing protocol. CONCLUSIONS: The E-ETDRS protocol has high test-retest reliability and good concordance with S-ETDRS testing. The computerized method has advantages over the S-ETDRS testing in electronically capturing the data for each tested letter, requiring only a single distance for testing from 20/12 to 20/800, potentially reducing testing time, and potentially decreasing technician-related bias.
PURPOSE: To develop a computerized method of visual acuity testing for clinical research as an alternative to the standard Early Treatment for Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) testing protocol, and to evaluate its test-retest reliability and concordance with standard ETDRS testing. DESIGN: Test-retest reliability study. METHODS: Multicenter setting of a study population of 265 patients at three clinical sites. Visual acuity was measured with both the electronic visual acuity testing algorithm (E-ETDRS) and standard ETDRS protocol (S-ETDRS) twice on one eye of each patient. E-ETDRS testing was conducted using the electronic visual acuity tester (EVA), which utilizes a programmed Palm (Palm, Inc, Santa Clara, California, USA) hand-held device communicating with a personal computer and 17-inch monitor at a test distance of 3 meters. RESULTS: For the E-ETDRS protocol, test-retest reliability was high (r = 0.99; with 89% and 98% of retests within 0.1 logMAR and 0.2 logMAR of initial tests, respectively) and comparable with that of S-ETDRS testing (r = 0.99; with 87% and 98% of retests within 0.1 logMAR and 0.2 logMAR of initial test, respectively). The E-ETDRS and S-ETDRS scores were highly correlated (r = 0.96 for initial tests and r = 0.97 for repeat tests). Based on estimates of 95% confidence intervals, a change in visual acuity of 0.2 logMAR (10 letters) from a baseline level is unlikely to be related to measurement variability using either the E-ETDRS or the S-ETDRS visual acuity testing protocol. CONCLUSIONS: The E-ETDRS protocol has high test-retest reliability and good concordance with S-ETDRS testing. The computerized method has advantages over the S-ETDRS testing in electronically capturing the data for each tested letter, requiring only a single distance for testing from 20/12 to 20/800, potentially reducing testing time, and potentially decreasing technician-related bias.
Authors: Ingrid U Scott; Paul C VanVeldhuisen; Neal L Oden; Michael S Ip; Barbara A Blodi; Mary Elizabeth Hartnett; Geoff Cohen Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: N M Bressler; K M Miller; R W Beck; S B Bressler; A R Glassman; J W Kitchens; M Melia; D K Schlossman Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2012-03-23 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Michael J Elman; Lloyd Paul Aiello; Roy W Beck; Neil M Bressler; Susan B Bressler; Allison R Edwards; Frederick L Ferris; Scott M Friedman; Adam R Glassman; Kellee M Miller; Ingrid U Scott; Cynthia R Stockdale; Jennifer K Sun Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2010-04-28 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Valeria L N Fu; Richard A Bilonick; Joost Felius; Richard W Hertle; Eileen E Birch Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2011-03-14 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Gui-shuang Ying; Maureen G Maguire; Ebenezer Daniel; Frederick L Ferris; Glenn J Jaffe; Juan E Grunwald; Cynthia A Toth; Jiayan Huang; Daniel F Martin Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Neil M Bressler; Wesley T Beaulieu; Adam R Glassman; Kevin J Blinder; Susan B Bressler; Lee M Jampol; Michele Melia; John A Wells Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Emily Y Chew; Traci E Clemons; Susan B Bressler; Michael J Elman; Ronald P Danis; Amitha Domalpally; Jeffrey S Heier; Judy E Kim; Richard Garfinkel Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2013-11-08 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Neil M Bressler; Allison R Edwards; Roy W Beck; Christina J Flaxel; Adam R Glassman; Michael S Ip; Craig Kollman; Baruch D Kuppermann; Thomas W Stone Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2009-12