Nilpa Shah1, Steven C Dakin2, Sarah Dobinson1, Adnan Tufail1, Catherine A Egan1, Roger S Anderson3. 1. NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK. 2. NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK Department of Optometry & Vision Science, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. 3. NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK Vision Science Research Group, School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Ulster at Coleraine, N Ireland, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Conventional Logarithm of the Minimum Angle of Resolution (logMAR) acuity is the current gold standard for assessing visual function in age-related macular degeneration (AMD). However, visual acuity (VA) often remains 'normal' when measured with these charts, even with advanced retinal changes. We wished to investigate how VA measurements with the Moorfields Acuity Chart (MAC), which employs high-pass filtered letters, compares to conventional letter charts in subjects with AMD. METHODS: Monocular best-corrected VA measurements and test-retest variability (TRV) were compared for conventional and MAC charts in 38 normal observers (mean age 52.1 years) and 80 patients (mean age 80.6 years) with varying degrees of acuity loss owing to AMD. Methods of Bland-Altman and ordinary least-squares regression were employed for data analysis. RESULTS: A proportional bias was confirmed between conventional and MAC measurements (r(2)=0.133, p=0.001) such that MAC acuity was -0.45 logMAR 'worse' at the 0.00 logMAR acuity level, but only -0.26 logMAR 'worse' at the 1.00 logMAR level. The mean bias was much smaller in the normal subject group (-0.16 logMAR). Similar TRV (ranging from ±0.09 to ±0.12 logMAR) was found for both charts in both subject groups. CONCLUSIONS: VA measurements with the MAC chart appear to be more sensitive to functional loss in AMD compared with conventional letter charts, with similar TRV. Simulations indicate this may be because the high-pass filtered letters are more vulnerable to undersampling as a result of retinal cell loss in the disease process. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Conventional Logarithm of the Minimum Angle of Resolution (logMAR) acuity is the current gold standard for assessing visual function in age-related macular degeneration (AMD). However, visual acuity (VA) often remains 'normal' when measured with these charts, even with advanced retinal changes. We wished to investigate how VA measurements with the Moorfields Acuity Chart (MAC), which employs high-pass filtered letters, compares to conventional letter charts in subjects with AMD. METHODS: Monocular best-corrected VA measurements and test-retest variability (TRV) were compared for conventional and MAC charts in 38 normal observers (mean age 52.1 years) and 80 patients (mean age 80.6 years) with varying degrees of acuity loss owing to AMD. Methods of Bland-Altman and ordinary least-squares regression were employed for data analysis. RESULTS: A proportional bias was confirmed between conventional and MAC measurements (r(2)=0.133, p=0.001) such that MAC acuity was -0.45 logMAR 'worse' at the 0.00 logMAR acuity level, but only -0.26 logMAR 'worse' at the 1.00 logMAR level. The mean bias was much smaller in the normal subject group (-0.16 logMAR). Similar TRV (ranging from ±0.09 to ±0.12 logMAR) was found for both charts in both subject groups. CONCLUSIONS: VA measurements with the MAC chart appear to be more sensitive to functional loss in AMD compared with conventional letter charts, with similar TRV. Simulations indicate this may be because the high-pass filtered letters are more vulnerable to undersampling as a result of retinal cell loss in the disease process. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
Authors: Jan H Terheyden; Robert P Finger; Steffen Schmitz-Valckenberg; Hansjürgen Agostini; Claudia Dahlke; Laura Kuehlewein; Gabriele E Lang; Daniel Pauleikhoff; Armin Wolf; Michael K Boettger; Ulrich F O Luhmann; Friedrich Asmus; Frank G Holz Journal: Ophthalmologe Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 1.059
Authors: Jan H Terheyden; Frank G Holz; Steffen Schmitz-Valckenberg; Anna Lüning; Matthias Schmid; Gary S Rubin; Hannah Dunbar; Adnan Tufail; David P Crabb; Alison Binns; Clara I Sánchez; Carel Hoyng; Philippe Margaron; Nadia Zakaria; Mary Durbin; Ulrich Luhmann; Parisa Zamiri; José Cunha-Vaz; Cecília Martinho; Sergio Leal; Robert P Finger Journal: Trials Date: 2020-07-18 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Manuel Heinemann; Susanne G Welker; Jeany Q Li; Maximilian W M Wintergerst; Gabrielle N Turski; Christopher A Turski; Jan H Terheyden; Matthias M Mauschitz; Frank G Holz; Robert P Finger Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-10-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Faran Sabeti; Jo Lane; Emilie M F Rohan; Bhim B Rai; Rohan W Essex; Elinor McKone; Ted Maddess Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2021-02-05 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Susanne G Pondorfer; Manuel Heinemann; Maximilian W M Wintergerst; Maximilian Pfau; Annika L Strömer; Frank G Holz; Robert P Finger Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-04-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Susanne G Pondorfer; Jan H Terheyden; Manuel Heinemann; Maximilian W M Wintergerst; Frank G Holz; Robert P Finger Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-10-25 Impact factor: 4.379