Literature DB >> 26743750

The influence of varying the number of characters per row on the accuracy and reproducibility of the ETDRS visual acuity chart.

Reuben R Shamir1, Yael G Friedman2, Leo Joskowicz1, Michael Mimouni2, Eytan Z Blumenthal3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: As part of an effort to improve upon the Snellen chart, we provide a standardized version of the ETDRS chart utilizing five characters in each row. The choice of five characters contradicts the recommended ten characters per row determined by the NAS-NRC, a committee established to provide guidelines for testing visual acuity. We set out to quantify the influence of varying the number of characters per line on the ETDRS chart with respect to the accuracy and reproducibility of visual acuity measurement.
METHODS: Eleven different ETDRS charts were created, each with a different number of characters appearing in each row. A computer simulation was programmed to run 10,000 virtual patients, each with a unique visual acuity, false-positive and false-negative error value.
RESULTS: Accuracy and reproducibility were found to roughly correlate with the number of characters present in each row, such that charts with 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 characters per row provided accuracy of 0.164, 0.094, 0.078, 0.073, 0.071, and 0.070 logMAR, respectively. A non-linear relationship was observed, with little improvement found beyond seven characters per row. In addition, charts with an even number of characters per row provided higher accuracy than their greater-number odd counterparts. In certain instances, accuracy and reproducibility were not well correlated.
CONCLUSIONS: Increasing the number of characters per row in the ETDRS chart provides a trade-off between accuracy and test duration. An optimized chart layout would take these findings into account, allowing for the use of different chart layouts for clinical versus research settings.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Accuracy; Characters; ETDRS; Number; Reproducibility; Row; Visual acuity

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26743750     DOI: 10.1007/s00417-015-3252-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0721-832X            Impact factor:   3.117


  22 in total

1.  The development of a "reduced logMAR" visual acuity chart for use in routine clinical practice.

Authors:  D A Rosser; D A Laidlaw; I E Murdoch
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 4.638

2.  Development of efficient threshold strategies for frequency doubling technology perimetry using computer simulation.

Authors:  Andrew Turpin; Allison M McKendrick; Chris A Johnson; Algis J Vingrys
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 4.799

3.  Computerized method of visual acuity testing: adaptation of the amblyopia treatment study visual acuity testing protocol.

Authors:  P S Moke; A H Turpin; R W Beck; J M Holmes; M X Repka; E E Birch; R W Hertle; R T Kraker; J M Miller; C A Johnson
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 5.258

4.  Examination of different pointwise linear regression methods for determining visual field progression.

Authors:  Stuart K Gardiner; David P Crabb
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 4.799

5.  Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from full threshold, ZEST, and SITA-like strategies, as determined by computer simulation.

Authors:  Andrew Turpin; Allison M McKendrick; Chris A Johnson; Algis J Vingrys
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 4.799

6.  Modelling series of visual fields to detect progression in normal-tension glaucoma.

Authors:  A I McNaught; D P Crabb; F W Fitzke; R A Hitchings
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 3.117

Review 7.  Recommended stardard procedures for the clinical measurement and specification of visual acuity. Report of working group 39. Committee on vision. Assembly of Behavioral and Social Sciences, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.

Authors: 
Journal:  Adv Ophthalmol       Date:  1980

8.  Comparison of different methods for detecting glaucomatous visual field progression.

Authors:  Eija Vesti; Chris A Johnson; Balwantray C Chauhan
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 4.799

9.  A comparison of Lea Symbol vs ETDRS letter distance visual acuity in a population of young children with a high prevalence of astigmatism.

Authors:  Velma Dobson; Candice E Clifford-Donaldson; Joseph M Miller; Katherine A Garvey; Erin M Harvey
Journal:  J AAPOS       Date:  2009-04-05       Impact factor: 1.220

10.  Comparison of the ETDRS logMAR, 'compact reduced logMar' and Snellen charts in routine clinical practice.

Authors:  L-A Lim; N A Frost; R J Powell; P Hewson
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2009-06-26       Impact factor: 3.775

View more
  4 in total

1.  Accuracy and reproducibility of the ETDRS visual acuity chart: methodological issues.

Authors:  Siamak Sabour; Fariba Ghassemi
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-07-05       Impact factor: 3.117

2.  Reply to: Accuracy and reproducibility of the ETDRS visual acuity chart: methodological issues.

Authors:  Reuben R Shamir; Yael G Friedman; Leo Joskowicz; Michael Mimouni; Eytan Z Blumenthal
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-06-30       Impact factor: 3.117

Review 3.  Refractive Outcomes after Cataract Surgery.

Authors:  Ramin Khoramnia; Gerd Auffarth; Grzegorz Łabuz; George Pettit; Rajaraman Suryakumar
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-01-19

4.  Global Tendency and Frontiers of Research on Myopia From 1900 to 2020: A Bibliometrics Analysis.

Authors:  Mengyuan Shan; Yi Dong; Jingyi Chen; Qing Su; Yan Wan
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2022-03-10
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.