Literature DB >> 31585961

Validation of electronic visual acuity (EVA) measurement against standardised ETDRS charts in patients with visual field loss from inherited retinal degenerations.

Jasleen K Jolly1,2,3, Kristin Juenemann3, Heather Boagey4, Marie Nadsady2, Holly Bridge3, Robert E Maclaren4,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: With the increase in clinical trials testing therapy for retinal disease, there is a need to ensure that outcome measures are both accurate and standardised. The US Food and Drug Administration favours the use of visual acuity measured using ETDRS logMAR charts. The loss of visual field can interfere with visual tracking across the charts, leading to increased variability of measurements. Electronic visual acuity (EVA) presents the optotype on the centre of a screen, thereby removing the tracking element of the task, and may provide a more precise measurement.
METHODS: Visual acuity was measured twice using ETDRS charts, EVA automated single letter (E-ETDRS) and EVA single line (EVA-SL) presentation (EMMES). Patients underwent microperimetry (MAIA; Centervue) to determine visual field. We tested 65 patients with rod-cone dystrophies and 41 healthy volunteers.
RESULTS: Both participant groups read 2-3 letters more on average on the electronic charts compared with ETDRS. Limits of agreement using a modified Bland-Altman analysis account for replicates were wider in eyes with foveal defects (-9 to 18) compared with eyes without foveal defects (-11 to 15). Electronic charts in the presence of foveal defects reduced the range (-11 to 13).
CONCLUSION: EVA may provide more accurate measures of visual acuity than traditional ETDRS charts in patients when the visual field loss encroached on the central vision. Electronic presentation with a single line of letters was the favoured style reported by patients and should be considered in future interventional clinical trials. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  VISual perception; degeneration; diagnostic tests/investigation; field of vision; psychophysics

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31585961      PMCID: PMC7316570          DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-315124

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0007-1161            Impact factor:   4.638


  12 in total

Review 1.  Measuring agreement in method comparison studies.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 3.021

2.  How sensitive to clinical change are ETDRS logMAR visual acuity measurements?

Authors:  Daniel A Rosser; Simon N Cousens; Ian E Murdoch; Fred W Fitzke; David A H Laidlaw
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 4.799

3.  Measurement error proportional to the mean.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-07-13

4.  Visual acuity testing. From the laboratory to the clinic.

Authors:  Ian L Bailey; Jan E Lovie-Kitchin
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2013-05-17       Impact factor: 1.886

5.  Vision test variability in retinitis pigmentosa and psychosocial factors.

Authors:  Ava K Bittner; Mohamed A Ibrahim; Jennifer A Haythornthwaite; Marie Diener-West; Gislin Dagnelie
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.973

6.  Prospective evaluation of visual acuity assessment: a comparison of snellen versus ETDRS charts in clinical practice (An AOS Thesis).

Authors:  Peter K Kaiser
Journal:  Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc       Date:  2009-12

7.  The Beaver Dam Eye Study: visual acuity.

Authors:  R Klein; B E Klein; K L Linton; D L De Mets
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  1991-08       Impact factor: 12.079

8.  A computerized method of visual acuity testing: adaptation of the early treatment of diabetic retinopathy study testing protocol.

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

9.  Differences in visual acuity between the eyes: determination of normal limits in a clinical population.

Authors:  B Brown; M K Yap
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 3.117

Review 10.  Outcome Measures Used in Ocular Gene Therapy Trials: A Scoping Review of Current Practice.

Authors:  Jasleen K Jolly; Holly Bridge; Robert E MacLaren
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2019-09-18       Impact factor: 5.810

View more
  3 in total

1.  Low Luminance Visual Acuity and Low Luminance Deficit in Choroideremia and RPGR-Associated Retinitis Pigmentosa.

Authors:  Laura J Wood; Jasleen K Jolly; Amandeep S Josan; Thomas M W Buckley; Robert E MacLaren
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2021-02-05       Impact factor: 3.283

2.  Report From the National Eye Institute Workshop on Neuro-Ophthalmic Disease Clinical Trial Endpoints: Optic Neuropathies.

Authors:  Leonard A Levin; Mohor Sengupta; Laura J Balcer; Mark J Kupersmith; Neil R Miller
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2021-11-01       Impact factor: 4.799

3.  Monitoring progression of retinitis pigmentosa: current recommendations and recent advances.

Authors:  Moreno Menghini; Jasmina Cehajic-Kapetanovic; Robert E MacLaren
Journal:  Expert Opin Orphan Drugs       Date:  2020-03-02       Impact factor: 0.694

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.