Literature DB >> 21997822

[Comparison of visual acuity measured using Landolt-C and ETDRS charts in healthy subjects and patients with various eye diseases].

R Becker1, G Teichler, M Gräf.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Results of visual acuity determination can differ depending on the stimuli being used, even if their critical details appear under the same visual angle. In this study, visual acuity measured with the Landolt C was compared to acuity measured with ETDRS charts in subjects with and without visual disorders. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred patients (age 8 to 90 years) with strabismus amblyopia (39), refractive amblyopia (5), cataract (24) and maculopathy (32) as well as 13 healthy volunteers (age 18 to 33 years) were examined. Retro-illuminated ETDRS 1, 2 and R charts (Lighthouse) and a retro-illuminated Landolt C chart with the same arrangement of optotypes (Precision Vision) were used. Three out of 5 optotypes in each line had to be correctly identified. In the patient group, the eyes with the lower visual acuity were tested, while the right eyes of the healthy subjects were monitored. Wrong answers were monitored and the results were noted in interpolated logMAR.
RESULTS: Differences between Landolt C (LC) and ETDRS acuity were only small and statistically not significant. LogMAR values (SEM in parentheses) for LC /ETDRS 1 were: entire group: 0.60 (0.04)/ 0.55 (0.04), strabismus amblyopia: 0.85 (0.08)/ 0.80 (0.08), refractive amblyopia: 0.27 (0.04)/ 0.23 (0.05), cataract: 0.57 (0.07)/ 0.51 (0.07), retinal disease: 0.67 (0.06)/ 0.61 (0.06), healthy eyes: -0.17 (0.03)/ -0.17 (0.02). The mean difference between LC and ETDRS 1 was 0.49 lines in the entire group and 0.51 lines in strabismus amblyopia in favour of ETDRS 1 values. ETDRS 2 and R charts yielded similar results.
CONCLUSIONS: In healthy subjects and in patients with various eye disorders including strabismus amblyopia, there was only a slight difference between visual acuity measured by ETDRS charts compared to the Landolt C. Comparing data of different settings it must be considered that in the lower visual acuity range (< 0.32), the mean ETDRS acuity of adults overestimates the Landolt C acuity by 0.5 and 1.0 line. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21997822     DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1281758

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Klin Monbl Augenheilkd        ISSN: 0023-2165            Impact factor:   0.700


  4 in total

1.  Comparison of optotypes of Amsterdam Picture Chart with those of Tumbling-E, LEA symbols, ETDRS, and Landolt-C in non-amblyopic and amblyopic patients.

Authors:  O Engin; D D G Despriet; H M van der Meulen-Schot; A Romers; X Slot; M Tjon Fo Sang; M Fronius; H Kelderman; H J Simonsz
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-09-17       Impact factor: 3.117

2.  Assessing visual acuity across five disease types: ETDRS charts are faster with clinical outcome comparable to Landolt Cs.

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

3.  Comparison of the visual acuity after photorefractive keratectomy using Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Chart and E-chart.

Authors:  Saeedeh Ghorbanhosseini; Hassan Hashemi; Ebrahim Jafarzadehpur; Abbasali Yekta; Mehdi Khabazkhoob
Journal:  J Curr Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-07-12

4.  Development of a Spatio-temporal Contrast Sensitivity Test for Clinical Use.

Authors:  Marcelo Fernandes Costa; Leonardo Dutra Henriques; Otávio Côrrea Pinho
Journal:  J Ophthalmic Vis Res       Date:  2022-01-21
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.