PURPOSE: To determine the sensitivity to change and specificity achieved when published test-retest variability (TRV) data are used to determine whether measured changes in ETDRS logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) visual acuity reflect true clinical change or are attributable to measurement error alone. METHODS: Various degrees of change in visual acuity were simulated in a group of normal subjects by adjusting test difficulty through manipulation of viewing distance. Sensitivity to simulated change and specificity were determined with change criteria derived from published Bland-Altman 95% ranges for TRV. RESULTS: The relationship between viewing distance and measured acuity was as predicted theoretically. Simulated acuity change of 0.2 logMAR (two lines of letters) or greater can be reliably distinguished from no change (both sensitivity and specificity >95%) with the ETDRS chart, but a change of 0.1 logMAR or less cannot. CONCLUSIONS: The use of 95% ranges for TRV to establish the smallest measured visual acuity change that can be reliably detected ensures a high specificity but does not take account of sensitivity. Use of change criteria derived from published 95% ranges results in a sensitivity of approximately 50% (assuming identical levels of TRV). Sensitivity may be improved by using a change criterion that is smaller than the minimum change sought, providing the change criterion is still at least as large as the 95% range for TRV, so that specificity is maintained. Reducing TRV allows smaller changes in acuity to be reliably detected.
PURPOSE: To determine the sensitivity to change and specificity achieved when published test-retest variability (TRV) data are used to determine whether measured changes in ETDRS logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) visual acuity reflect true clinical change or are attributable to measurement error alone. METHODS: Various degrees of change in visual acuity were simulated in a group of normal subjects by adjusting test difficulty through manipulation of viewing distance. Sensitivity to simulated change and specificity were determined with change criteria derived from published Bland-Altman 95% ranges for TRV. RESULTS: The relationship between viewing distance and measured acuity was as predicted theoretically. Simulated acuity change of 0.2 logMAR (two lines of letters) or greater can be reliably distinguished from no change (both sensitivity and specificity >95%) with the ETDRS chart, but a change of 0.1 logMAR or less cannot. CONCLUSIONS: The use of 95% ranges for TRV to establish the smallest measured visual acuity change that can be reliably detected ensures a high specificity but does not take account of sensitivity. Use of change criteria derived from published 95% ranges results in a sensitivity of approximately 50% (assuming identical levels of TRV). Sensitivity may be improved by using a change criterion that is smaller than the minimum change sought, providing the change criterion is still at least as large as the 95% range for TRV, so that specificity is maintained. Reducing TRV allows smaller changes in acuity to be reliably detected.
Authors: Reuben R Shamir; Yael G Friedman; Leo Joskowicz; Michael Mimouni; Eytan Z Blumenthal Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Tariq Aslam; Sajjad Mahmood; Konstantinos Balaskas; Niall Patton; Rajeev G Tanawade; Shi Zhuan Tan; Stephen A Roberts; Jeremy Parkes; Paul N Bishop Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2013-07-25 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Fidel Vega; Maria S Millán; Nuria Garzón; Irene Altemir; Francisco Poyales; Jose Manuel Larrosa Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2018-09-17 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Scott D Walter; Hiroshi Ishikawa; Kristin M Galetta; Reiko E Sakai; Daniel J Feller; Sam B Henderson; James A Wilson; Maureen G Maguire; Steven L Galetta; Elliot Frohman; Peter A Calabresi; Joel S Schuman; Laura J Balcer Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2012-02-23 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Zane S Schnurman; Teresa C Frohman; Shin C Beh; Darrel Conger; Amy Conger; Shiv Saidha; Steven Galetta; Peter A Calabresi; Ari J Green; Laura J Balcer; Elliot M Frohman Journal: Neurology Date: 2014-04-30 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Simone Koenig; Felix Tonagel; Ulrich Schiefer; Michael Bach; Sven P Heinrich Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2014-05-28 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Philip Hykin; A Toby Prevost; Sobha Sivaprasad; Joana C Vasconcelos; Caroline Murphy; Joanna Kelly; Jayashree Ramu; Abualbishr Alshreef; Laura Flight; Rebekah Pennington; Barry Hounsome; Ellen Lever; Andrew Metry; Edith Poku; Yit Yang; Simon P Harding; Andrew Lotery; Usha Chakravarthy; John Brazier Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2021-06 Impact factor: 4.014