M Bach1, M Reuter2, W A Lagrèze3. 1. Klink für Augenheilkunde, Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, Killianstr. 5, 79106, Freiburg, Deutschland. michael.bach@uniklinik-freiburg.de. 2. Fachbereichsleitung Kinder- und Jugendgesundheit, Geschäftsbereich Gesundheit, Landratsamt Rems-Murr-Kreis, Waiblingen, Deutschland. 3. Klink für Augenheilkunde, Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, Killianstr. 5, 79106, Freiburg, Deutschland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: On the initiative of professionals performing vision screening for primary school enrolment, we compared the laptop-based Freiburg acuity and contrast test (FrACT) as a more easily portable alternative to the traditionally employed tumbling E vision test. METHODS: We assessed vision with both methods in 326 children (647 eyes) aged 3.8-6.9 years. The FrACT was set to present the Landolt C optotype with the four cardinal orientations and automatic threshold bracketing over 18 presentations. RESULTS: The 95% limits of agreement between both methods were ±0.125 logMAR and 95% of all test differences were within slightly more than ±1 line. Over the examined age range acuity significantly but weakly increased (p < 0.01) from 0.7 to 0.9 and for Landolt Cs the acuity gain was slightly higher by 0.02 logMAR per year. The FrACT results were ≥3 lines lower than those of the tumbling E chart in only 6 eyes. The examiners unanimously preferred FrACT. DISCUSSION: The agreement between both tests of approximately ±1 lines is very high. The low outlier rate of <1% is deemed to be acceptable for a screening test.
BACKGROUND: On the initiative of professionals performing vision screening for primary school enrolment, we compared the laptop-based Freiburg acuity and contrast test (FrACT) as a more easily portable alternative to the traditionally employed tumbling E vision test. METHODS: We assessed vision with both methods in 326 children (647 eyes) aged 3.8-6.9 years. The FrACT was set to present the Landolt C optotype with the four cardinal orientations and automatic threshold bracketing over 18 presentations. RESULTS: The 95% limits of agreement between both methods were ±0.125 logMAR and 95% of all test differences were within slightly more than ±1 line. Over the examined age range acuity significantly but weakly increased (p < 0.01) from 0.7 to 0.9 and for Landolt Cs the acuity gain was slightly higher by 0.02 logMAR per year. The FrACT results were ≥3 lines lower than those of the tumbling E chart in only 6 eyes. The examiners unanimously preferred FrACT. DISCUSSION: The agreement between both tests of approximately ±1 lines is very high. The low outlier rate of <1% is deemed to be acceptable for a screening test.
Authors: Frea Sloot; Hans L J Hoeve; Marlou L A de Kroon; André Goedegebure; Jill Carlton; Helen J Griffiths; Huibert J Simonsz Journal: J Med Screen Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 2.136