L-A Lim1, N A Frost, R J Powell, P Hewson. 1. Ophthalmology Department, The West of England Eye Unit, Royal Devon and Exeter Foundation Trust, Exeter, Devon, UK. leiailim@doctors.org.uk
Abstract
AIM: To compare the performance of the ETDRS logMAR, compact reduced logMAR and Snellen charts in an ophthalmic outpatient setting. METHODS: The reliability and reading times of the charts were compared in a stratified sample of 40 eyes of 40 ophthalmic patients with a variety of stable eye diseases. In order to simulate a clinical setting, forced-choice testing was not used. RESULTS: Similar acuity results were recorded from all three charts, suggesting a lack of a systematic bias as regards chart design. A small practice effect was observed for all charts but was greatest for Snellen and least for ETDRS. The test-retest variability of the charts was similar, with the 95% tolerance limit for change being +/-0.14 logMAR for ETDRS, +/-0.16 for reduced logMAR and +/-0.18 for Snellen. The mean reading times for the subjects were 34.65 s for ETDRS, 21.17 s for reduced logMAR and 18.67 s for Snellen. CONCLUSION: The performance of the compact reduced logMAR chart was intermediate between Snellen and ETDRS. The theoretical advantages of the ETDRS design were still measurable in a clinical setting but the magnitude of the advantage in terms of test-retest reliability was fairly small and the time taken to complete the EDTRS was 1.86 times that of the Snellen chart.
AIM: To compare the performance of the ETDRS logMAR, compact reduced logMAR and Snellen charts in an ophthalmic outpatient setting. METHODS: The reliability and reading times of the charts were compared in a stratified sample of 40 eyes of 40 ophthalmic patients with a variety of stable eye diseases. In order to simulate a clinical setting, forced-choice testing was not used. RESULTS: Similar acuity results were recorded from all three charts, suggesting a lack of a systematic bias as regards chart design. A small practice effect was observed for all charts but was greatest for Snellen and least for ETDRS. The test-retest variability of the charts was similar, with the 95% tolerance limit for change being +/-0.14 logMAR for ETDRS, +/-0.16 for reduced logMAR and +/-0.18 for Snellen. The mean reading times for the subjects were 34.65 s for ETDRS, 21.17 s for reduced logMAR and 18.67 s for Snellen. CONCLUSION: The performance of the compact reduced logMAR chart was intermediate between Snellen and ETDRS. The theoretical advantages of the ETDRS design were still measurable in a clinical setting but the magnitude of the advantage in terms of test-retest reliability was fairly small and the time taken to complete the EDTRS was 1.86 times that of the Snellen chart.
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: 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: G Barteselli; M L Gomez; A L Doede; J Chhablani; W Gutstein; D-U Bartsch; L Dustin; S P Azen; W R Freeman Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2014-08-01 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Reuben R Shamir; Yael Friedman; Leo Joskowicz; Michael Mimouni; Eytan Z Blumenthal Journal: Int J Ophthalmol Date: 2016-01-18 Impact factor: 1.779
Authors: Andrew Bastawrous; Hillary K Rono; Iain A T Livingstone; Helen A Weiss; Stewart Jordan; Hannah Kuper; Matthew J Burton Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 7.389