Peter K Kaiser1. 1. The Cleveland Clinic Cole Eye Institute, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Abstract
THE PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY WAS TWOFOLD: first, to prospectively compare visual acuity (VA) scores obtained with Snellen charts versus Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) charts in a "real world" retinal practice, and second, to see if there was a difference in visual acuity measurements obtained with ETDRS charts starting at 4 or 2 meters. METHODS: Prospective, consecutive evaluation of patients who underwent best-corrected visual acuity testing of their right eye performed at a single seating by the same experienced, certified vision examiner in the same room with standardized low light conditions using a projected Snellen chart at 20 feet, and two different back-illuminated ETDRS charts placed 4 and 2 meters from the patient. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-three eyes were included in the study. The mean Snellen VA was 0.67 logMAR (20/94), ETDRS VA at 4 meters was 0.54 logMAR (~20/69), and ETDRS VA at 2 meters was 0.51 logMAR (~20/65). The mean difference was 6.5 letters better on the ETDRS chart (P=.000000001). As the VA worsened, there was increased variability between the charts and the mean discrepancy between charts also increased. Subgroup analysis revealed the greatest difference between charts was in the poor vision subgroup (<20/200) with a difference of 0.2 logMAR (10 letters; P=.0000002). Patients with exudative age-related macular degeneration (AMD) had the greatest disparity on vision testing, but patients with dry AMD and diabetic retinopathy also exhibited significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Visual acuity scores were significantly better on ETDRS charts compared to Snellen charts. The difference was greatest with poor visual acuity (<20/200) and in patients with exudative AMD. Thus, caution should be exercised when comparing data using the different charts.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY WAS TWOFOLD: first, to prospectively compare visual acuity (VA) scores obtained with Snellen charts versus Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) charts in a "real world" retinal practice, and second, to see if there was a difference in visual acuity measurements obtained with ETDRS charts starting at 4 or 2 meters. METHODS: Prospective, consecutive evaluation of patients who underwent best-corrected visual acuity testing of their right eye performed at a single seating by the same experienced, certified vision examiner in the same room with standardized low light conditions using a projected Snellen chart at 20 feet, and two different back-illuminated ETDRS charts placed 4 and 2 meters from the patient. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-three eyes were included in the study. The mean Snellen VA was 0.67 logMAR (20/94), ETDRS VA at 4 meters was 0.54 logMAR (~20/69), and ETDRS VA at 2 meters was 0.51 logMAR (~20/65). The mean difference was 6.5 letters better on the ETDRS chart (P=.000000001). As the VA worsened, there was increased variability between the charts and the mean discrepancy between charts also increased. Subgroup analysis revealed the greatest difference between charts was in the poor vision subgroup (<20/200) with a difference of 0.2 logMAR (10 letters; P=.0000002). Patients with exudative age-related macular degeneration (AMD) had the greatest disparity on vision testing, but patients with dry AMD and diabetic retinopathy also exhibited significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Visual acuity scores were significantly better on ETDRS charts compared to Snellen charts. The difference was greatest with poor visual acuity (<20/200) and in patients with exudative AMD. Thus, caution should be exercised when comparing data using the different charts.
Authors: G Cennamo; M R Romano; E C Vecchio; C Minervino; C Della Guardia; N Velotti; A Carotenuto; S Montella; G Orefice; G Cennamo Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2015-12-18 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Rachel E Ward; Marla K Beauchamp; Nancy K Latham; Suzanne G Leveille; Sanja Percac-Lima; Laura Kurlinski; Pengsheng Ni; Richard Goldstein; Alan M Jette; Jonathan F Bean Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2016-04-04 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Adam R Glassman; Carl W Baker; Wesley T Beaulieu; Neil M Bressler; Omar S Punjabi; Cynthia R Stockdale; Charles C Wykoff; Lee M Jampol; Jennifer K Sun Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 7.389