Y Bokinni1, N Shah2, O Maguire2, D A H Laidlaw2. 1. Addenbrookes's Hospital, Cambridge University NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to compare the performance of two different COMPlog computerised, single letter scoring, visual acuity (VA) measurements against gold standard Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart measurements in patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD). One computerised algorithm presented five and the other presented three letters per line; both computerised algorithms utilised half, rather than the full-letter width spacing standard on ETDRS charts that might induce crowding, fixation problems, increased test-retest variability (TRV), and bias. METHODS: Fifty patients with AMD (mean age 83 years) underwent timed test and retest VA measurements using ETDRS charts and COMPlog five (C5) and three (C3) letters per line computerised VA measurement algorithms. All tests utilised single-letter scoring methodology. Bland and Altman methods were employed. Performance was measured in terms of bias, TRV, and test time. RESULTS: The C5 and C3 scores showed no bias compared with the ETDRS chart measurements. C5 measurements had equal TRV to the ETDRS chart (±0.13 logMAR) with similar median test times (105 and 96 s, respectively). C3 measurements were slightly more variable (TRV ±0.17 logMAR), but 30 s quicker than ETDRS chart measurements. CONCLUSIONS: The closer letter spacing employed in COMPlog testing algorithms appears to have no adverse effect on VA measurements compared with the gold standard ETDRS chart in patients with AMD. The three letter per line testing algorithm facilitates faster testing but with a two letter increase in TRV.
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to compare the performance of two different COMPlog computerised, single letter scoring, visual acuity (VA) measurements against gold standard Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart measurements in patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD). One computerised algorithm presented five and the other presented three letters per line; both computerised algorithms utilised half, rather than the full-letter width spacing standard on ETDRS charts that might induce crowding, fixation problems, increased test-retest variability (TRV), and bias. METHODS: Fifty patients with AMD (mean age 83 years) underwent timed test and retest VA measurements using ETDRS charts and COMPlog five (C5) and three (C3) letters per line computerised VA measurement algorithms. All tests utilised single-letter scoring methodology. Bland and Altman methods were employed. Performance was measured in terms of bias, TRV, and test time. RESULTS: The C5 and C3 scores showed no bias compared with the ETDRS chart measurements. C5 measurements had equal TRV to the ETDRS chart (±0.13 logMAR) with similar median test times (105 and 96 s, respectively). C3 measurements were slightly more variable (TRV ±0.17 logMAR), but 30 s quicker than ETDRS chart measurements. CONCLUSIONS: The closer letter spacing employed in COMPlog testing algorithms appears to have no adverse effect on VA measurements compared with the gold standard ETDRS chart in patients with AMD. The three letter per line testing algorithm facilitates faster testing but with a two letter increase in TRV.
Authors: Susan A Cotter; Raymond H Chu; Danielle L Chandler; Roy W Beck; Jonathan M Holmes; Melissa L Rice; Richard W Hertle; Eileen E Birch; Pamela S Moke Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Geeta A Lalwani; Philip J Rosenfeld; Anne E Fung; Sander R Dubovy; Stephen Michels; William Feuer; Janet L Davis; Harry W Flynn; Maria Esquiabro Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2009-04-18 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Suman K Paine; Lakshmi K Mondal; Prasanta K Borah; Chandra K Bhattacharya; Jagadish Mahanta Journal: Mol Vis Date: 2017-06-22 Impact factor: 2.367
Authors: Marta Marquié; Sergi Valero; Miguel Castilla-Marti; Joan Martínez; Octavio Rodríguez-Gómez; Ángela Sanabria; Juan Pablo Tartari; Gemma C Monté-Rubio; Oscar Sotolongo-Grau; Montserrat Alegret; Alba Pérez-Cordón; Natalia Roberto; Itziar de Rojas; Sonia Moreno-Grau; Laura Montrreal; Isabel Hernández; Maitee Rosende-Roca; Ana Mauleón; Liliana Vargas; Carla Abdelnour; Silvia Gil; Ester Esteban-De Antonio; Ana Espinosa; Gemma Ortega; Francisco Lomeña; Javier Pavia; Assumpta Vivas; Miguel Ángel Tejero; Marta Gómez-Chiari; Rafael Simó; Andreea Ciudin; Cristina Hernández; Adelina Orellana; Alba Benaque; Agustín Ruiz; Lluís Tárraga; Mercè Boada Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2020-03-31 Impact factor: 6.982
Authors: Timothy L Jackson; Catey Bunce; Riti Desai; Jost Hillenkamp; Chan Ning Lee; Noemi Lois; Tunde Peto; Barnaby C Reeves; David H Steel; Rhiannon T Edwards; Jan C van Meurs; Hatem Wafa; Yanzhong Wang Journal: Trials Date: 2022-01-31 Impact factor: 2.279