Literature DB >> 26949621

Comparison of Snellen and Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study charts using a computer simulation.

Reuben R Shamir1, Yael Friedman2, Leo Joskowicz1, Michael Mimouni3, Eytan Z Blumenthal3.   

Abstract

AIM: To compare accuracy, reproducibility and test duration for the Snellen and the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) charts, two main tools used to measure visual acuity (VA).
METHODS: A computer simulation was programmed to run multiple virtual patients, each with a unique set of assigned parameters, including VA, false-positive and false-negative error values. For each virtual patient, assigned VA was randomly chosen along a continuous scale spanning the range between 1.0 to 0.0 logMAR units (equivalent to 20/200 to 20/20). Each of 30 000 virtual patients were run ten times on each of the two VA charts.
RESULTS: Average test duration (expressed as the total number of characters presented during the test ±SD) was 12.6±11.1 and 31.2±14.7 characters, for the Snellen and ETDRS, respectively. Accuracy, defined as the absolute difference (± SD) between the assigned VA and the measured VA, expressed in logMAR units, was superior in the ETDRS charts: 0.12±0.14 and 0.08±0.08, for the Snellen and ETDRS charts, respectively. Reproducibility, expressed as test-retest variability, was superior in the ETDRS charts: 0.23±0.17 and 0.11±0.09 logMAR units, for the Snellen and ETDRS charts, respectively.
CONCLUSION: A comparison of true (assigned) VA to measured VA, demonstrated, on average, better accuracy and reproducibility of the ETDRS chart, but at the penalty of significantly longer test duration. These differences were most pronounced in the low VA range. The reproducibility using a simulation approach is in line with reproducibility values found in several clinical studies.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study; Snellen; computer simulation; virtual patients; visual acuity testing

Year:  2016        PMID: 26949621      PMCID: PMC4768517          DOI: 10.18240/ijo.2016.01.20

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol        ISSN: 2222-3959            Impact factor:   1.779


  27 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Adjunctive use of intravitreal dexamethasone in presumed bacterial endophthalmitis: a randomised trial.

Authors:  E Albrecht; J C Richards; T Pollock; C Cook; L Myers
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2011-02-02       Impact factor: 4.638

4.  [Repeatability and reliability of the visual acuity examination on logMAR ETDRS and Snellen chart].

Authors:  P Veselý; S Synek
Journal:  Cesk Slov Oftalmol       Date:  2012-05

5.  Validation of printed and computerised crowded Kay picture logMAR tests against gold standard ETDRS acuity test chart measurements in adult and amblyopic paediatric subjects.

Authors:  N Shah; D A H Laidlaw; S Rashid; P Hysi
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2011-12-23       Impact factor: 3.775

6.  Injection frequency and response to bevacizumab monotherapy for diabetic macular oedema (BOLT Report 5).

Authors:  Sobha Sivaprasad; Roxanne Crosby-Nwaobi; Ling Zhi Heng; Tunde Peto; Michel Michaelides; Phil Hykin
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-07-03       Impact factor: 4.638

7.  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

8.  Effectiveness and safety of femtosecond laser-assisted lens fragmentation and anterior capsulotomy versus the manual technique in cataract surgery.

Authors:  Kasu Prasad Reddy; Jochen Kandulla; Gerd U Auffarth
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 3.351

9.  The U.S. Army Surface Ablation Study: comparison of PRK, MMC-PRK, and LASEK in moderate to high myopia.

Authors:  Rose K Sia; Denise S Ryan; Jayson D Edwards; Richard D Stutzman; Kraig S Bower
Journal:  J Refract Surg       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 3.573

10.  Comparison of visual acuity estimates using three different letter charts under two ambient room illuminations.

Authors:  Ai-Hong Chen; Fatin Nur Najwa Norazman; Noor Halilah Buari
Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol       Date:  2012 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.848

View more
  8 in total

1.  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

2.  MD1003 (High-Dose Pharmaceutical-Grade Biotin) for the Treatment of Chronic Visual Loss Related to Optic Neuritis in Multiple Sclerosis: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study.

Authors:  Ayman Tourbah; Olivier Gout; Alain Vighetto; Véronique Deburghgraeve; Jean Pelletier; Caroline Papeix; Christine Lebrun-Frenay; Pierre Labauge; David Brassat; Ahmed Toosy; David-Axel Laplaud; Olivier Outteryck; Thibault Moreau; Marc Debouverie; Pierre Clavelou; Olivier Heinzlef; Jérôme De Sèze; Gilles Defer; Frédéric Sedel; Carl Arndt
Journal:  CNS Drugs       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 5.749

3.  Correlation of macular sensitivity measures and visual acuity to vision-related quality of life in patients with age-related macular degeneration.

Authors:  Thomas Richard Johansen Forshaw; Alexandra Kalia Parpounas; Torben Lykke Sørensen
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-03-23       Impact factor: 2.209

4.  Saving space: Comparing mini - logMAR with standard logMAR visual acuity.

Authors:  Farnaz Kauser; Abadan K Amitava; Juhi Saxena; S Aisha Raza; Anam Masood; Md Shahid Alam
Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 1.848

5.  Comparison of Visual Acuity Measurement Using Three Methods: Standard ETDRS Chart, Near Chart and a Smartphone-Based Eye Chart Application.

Authors:  Nanida Tiraset; Anuchit Poonyathalang; Tanyatuth Padungkiatsagul; Montakarn Deeyai; Polathep Vichitkunakorn; Kavin Vanikieti
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-02-26

6.  Quantification of the Dynamic Visual Acuity Space at Real-World Luminances and Contrasts: The VA-CAL Test.

Authors:  Julian Hilmers; Torsten Straßer; Michael Bach; Katarina Stingl; Eberhart Zrenner
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2022-04-01       Impact factor: 3.048

7.  Evaluating an automated machine learning model that predicts visual acuity outcomes in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration.

Authors:  Abdallah Abbas; Ciara O'Byrne; Dun Jack Fu; Gabriella Moraes; Konstantinos Balaskas; Robbert Struyven; Sara Beqiri; Siegfried K Wagner; Edward Korot; Pearse A Keane
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-02-05       Impact factor: 3.535

8.  Fear of falling avoidance behavior affects the inter-relationship between vision impairment and diminished mobility in community-dwelling older adults.

Authors:  Szu-Ping Lee; Ya-Wen Hsu; Lauren Andrew; Talia Davis; Christian Johnson
Journal:  Physiother Theory Pract       Date:  2020-06-16       Impact factor: 2.176

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.