Literature DB >> 18829857

Uniformity of visual acuity measures in published studies.

Michael A Williams1, Tanya N Moutray, A Jonathan Jackson.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate the methods used in contemporary ophthalmic literature to designate visual acuity (VA).
METHODS: Papers in all 2005 editions of five ophthalmic journals were considered. Papers were included if (1) VA, vision, or visual function was mentioned in the abstract and (2) if the study involved age-related macular degeneration, cataract, or refractive surgery. If a paper was selected on the basis of its abstract, the full text of the paper was examined for information on the method of refractive correction during VA testing, type of chart used to measure VA, specifics concerning chart features, testing protocols, and data analysis and means of expressing VA in results.
RESULTS: One hundred twenty-eight papers were included. The most common type of charts used were described as logMAR-based. Although most (89.8%) of the studies reported on the method of refractive correction during VA testing, only 58.6% gave the chart design, and less than 12% gave any information whatsoever on chart features or measurement procedures used.
CONCLUSIONS: The methods used and the approach to analysis were rarely described in sufficient detail to allow others to replicate the study being reported. Sufficient detail should be given on VA measurement to enable others to duplicate the research. The authors suggest that charts adhering to Bailey-Lovie design principles always be used to measure vision in prospective studies and their use encouraged in clinical settings. The distinction between the terms logMAR, an acuity notation, and Bailey-Lovie or ETDRS as chart types should be adhered to more strictly.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18829857     DOI: 10.1167/iovs.07-0511

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci        ISSN: 0146-0404            Impact factor:   4.799


  7 in total

1.  Performance of a computerised visual acuity measurement device in subjects with age-related macular degeneration: comparison with gold standard ETDRS chart measurements.

Authors:  Y Bokinni; N Shah; O Maguire; D A H Laidlaw
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2015-06-05       Impact factor: 3.775

2.  Is conversion of decimal visual acuity measurements to logMAR values reliable?

Authors:  Asimina Mataftsi; Dimitrios Koutsimpogeorgos; Periklis Brazitikos; Nikolaos Ziakas; Anna-Bettina Haidich
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-05-08       Impact factor: 3.117

3.  Visual acuity as measured with Landolt C chart and Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart.

Authors:  Hsi-Kung Kuo; Ming-Tse Kuo; Ing-Soo Tiong; Pei-Chang Wu; Yung-Jen Chen; Chih-Hsin Chen
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2010-07-24       Impact factor: 3.117

4.  Prospective evaluation of visual acuity assessment: a comparison of snellen versus ETDRS charts in clinical practice (An AOS Thesis).

Authors:  Peter K Kaiser
Journal:  Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc       Date:  2009-12

5.  Psychophysical Vision Simulation of Diffractive Bifocal and Trifocal Intraocular Lenses.

Authors:  Wolfgang Brezna; Kirsten Lux; Nikolaus Dragostinoff; Christian Krutzler; Nicole Plank; Rainer Tobisch; Agnes Boltz; Gerhard Garhöfer; Reinhard Told; Katarzyna Witkowska; Leopold Schmetterer
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2016-10-17       Impact factor: 3.283

6.  HAS SNELLEN CHART LOST THE BATTLE TO ETDRS IN CATARACT SURGERY VISUAL ACUITY EVALUATION?

Authors:  Sanja Petrović Pajić; Tiana Petrović; Milenko Stojković; Slađana Anđelić
Journal:  Acta Clin Croat       Date:  2022-02       Impact factor: 0.780

7.  Biometry and visual function of a healthy cohort in Leipzig, Germany.

Authors:  Maria Teresa Zocher; Jos J Rozema; Nicole Oertel; Jens Dawczynski; Peter Wiedemann; Franziska G Rauscher
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-06-07       Impact factor: 2.209

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.