PURPOSE: Evaluate Humphrey visual field (VF) analyzer central 30-2 foveal threshold test for best-corrected visual acuity. DESIGN: Consecutive case series. METHODS: Both eyes (n = 117) of 59 patients with diseased and healthy eyes presenting for VF analysis were evaluated to determine foveal threshold. This was compared with uncorrected visual acuity converted to logMAR, determined by manifest refraction, or estimated from Snellen visual acuity with pinhole. RESULTS: Foveal threshold correlated with logMAR uncorrected visual acuity for right (P < .0001) and left eyes (P < .0001) and logMAR best-corrected visual acuity for right (P < .0001) and left eyes (P < .0001). Sixty-eight percent of eyes with visual acuity <20/50 had foveal threshold of 0 to 30; 47% with visual acuity of >20/20 had foveal threshold better than 37. CONCLUSIONS: Foveal threshold measurement appears to provide a reliable estimate of best-corrected visual acuity. This method may usefully predict visual acuity in eyes with possible nonorganic visual acuity loss.
PURPOSE: Evaluate Humphrey visual field (VF) analyzer central 30-2 foveal threshold test for best-corrected visual acuity. DESIGN: Consecutive case series. METHODS: Both eyes (n = 117) of 59 patients with diseased and healthy eyes presenting for VF analysis were evaluated to determine foveal threshold. This was compared with uncorrected visual acuity converted to logMAR, determined by manifest refraction, or estimated from Snellen visual acuity with pinhole. RESULTS: Foveal threshold correlated with logMAR uncorrected visual acuity for right (P < .0001) and left eyes (P < .0001) and logMAR best-corrected visual acuity for right (P < .0001) and left eyes (P < .0001). Sixty-eight percent of eyes with visual acuity <20/50 had foveal threshold of 0 to 30; 47% with visual acuity of >20/20 had foveal threshold better than 37. CONCLUSIONS: Foveal threshold measurement appears to provide a reliable estimate of best-corrected visual acuity. This method may usefully predict visual acuity in eyes with possible nonorganic visual acuity loss.
Authors: Roberta W Scherer; Steven E Feldon; Lori Levin; Patricia Langenberg; Joanne Katz; Penelope M Keyl; P David Wilson; Shalom E Kelman; Kay Dickersin Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2008-05-16 Impact factor: 12.079