PURPOSE: Visual acuity tests are generally performed by showing eye charts to the subjects and registering their correct/incorrect identifications for the presented optotypes. We recently developed a correlation-based scoring method that significantly reduces the statistical error associated with relative letter legibility. In this paper, our purpose was to demonstrate the advantages and clinical utility of our scoring scheme compared to standard methods. METHODS: We developed a new computer-controlled measurement setup aligned with the ophthalmological standard. With this system, we presented the application of our correlation-based scoring in conventional clinical environment for 25 subjects and estimated the systematic error of the obtained acuity values. A separate experiment was performed by 14 additional subjects to reveal the test-retest variability of the new scoring method. RESULTS: The average systematic error relative to standard probability-based scoring is 0.01 logMAR over the examined subject group. Application of the correlation-based scheme when used in clinical environment with five letters per size decreases the repeatability error by ∼20% and increases diagnosis time by ∼10%. CONCLUSIONS: The new scoring scheme is directly applicable in clinical practice providing unbiased results with improved repeatability compared to standard visual acuity measurements. It reduces test-retest variability by the same amount as if the number of letters was doubled in traditional tests. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: Our new method is a promising alternative to conventional acuity tests in cases when high-precision measurements are required, for example evaluating implanted intraocular lenses, testing subjects with retinal diseases or cataract, and refractive surgery candidates.
PURPOSE: Visual acuity tests are generally performed by showing eye charts to the subjects and registering their correct/incorrect identifications for the presented optotypes. We recently developed a correlation-based scoring method that significantly reduces the statistical error associated with relative letter legibility. In this paper, our purpose was to demonstrate the advantages and clinical utility of our scoring scheme compared to standard methods. METHODS: We developed a new computer-controlled measurement setup aligned with the ophthalmological standard. With this system, we presented the application of our correlation-based scoring in conventional clinical environment for 25 subjects and estimated the systematic error of the obtained acuity values. A separate experiment was performed by 14 additional subjects to reveal the test-retest variability of the new scoring method. RESULTS: The average systematic error relative to standard probability-based scoring is 0.01 logMAR over the examined subject group. Application of the correlation-based scheme when used in clinical environment with five letters per size decreases the repeatability error by ∼20% and increases diagnosis time by ∼10%. CONCLUSIONS: The new scoring scheme is directly applicable in clinical practice providing unbiased results with improved repeatability compared to standard visual acuity measurements. It reduces test-retest variability by the same amount as if the number of letters was doubled in traditional tests. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: Our new method is a promising alternative to conventional acuity tests in cases when high-precision measurements are required, for example evaluating implanted intraocular lenses, testing subjects with retinal diseases or cataract, and refractive surgery candidates.
Authors: Roy W Beck; Pamela S Moke; Andrew H Turpin; Frederick L Ferris; John Paul SanGiovanni; Chris A Johnson; Eileen E Birch; Danielle L Chandler; Terry A Cox; R Clifford Blair; Raymond T Kraker Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 5.258