Comparison of Backlit and Novel Automated ETDRS Visual Acuity Charts.
Background: This study was conducted to compare two different methods and presentation systems of testing visual acuity to determine whether they are equivalent. Methods: We compared the results of taking visual acuity (VA) measures with the standard backlit Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy S...
| Publicado en: | Optometry & Visual Performance Vol. 6; no. 2; pp. 87 - 97 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , |
| Formato: | pictorial research tables/charts Journal Article |
| Publicado: |
Optometric Extension Program
Apr2018
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=129365710&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 129365710 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 23253479 HOOW jtl: Optometry & Visual Performance issn: 23253479 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Apr2018 vid: 6 iid: 2 pid: 46881 pub: Optometric Extension Program place: Lutherville Timonium, Maryland artinfo: ui: 129365710 129365710 129365710 129365710 ppf: 87 ppct: 10 formats: tig: atl: Comparison of Backlit and Novel Automated ETDRS Visual Acuity Charts. aug: au: Harris, Paul A. Roberts, Laurel E. Grant, Rachel affil: OD, Southern College of Optometry, Memphis, Tennessee sug: subj: Visual Acuity Vision Tests Methods Diabetic Retinopathy Diagnosis Diabetic Retinopathy Therapy Human Correlation Coefficient Comparative Studies Eyeglasses ab: Background: This study was conducted to compare two different methods and presentation systems of testing visual acuity to determine whether they are equivalent. Methods: We compared the results of taking visual acuity (VA) measures with the standard backlit Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (backlit ETDRS) and Automated ETDRS (A-ETDRS) VA charts (M&S Technologies, Inc., Niles, IL) on 111 healthy subjects with corrected visual acuity of 20/20 or better. Testing was done under four conditions-- with spectacles, uncorrected, with +1.50 blur over spectacles, and with +3.00 blur over spectacles--to assess correlation of primary outcomes between charts across a wide range of acuity measures. Visual acuity measures were recorded in letter count, logMAR, and standard Snellen measures. Results: Correlations between the backlit ETDRS and the A-ETDRS chart types were 0.93 (uncorrected), 0.60 (with spectacles), 0.76 (+1.50 blur over spectacles), and 0.50 (+3.00 blur over spectacles), with all correlations statistically significant at p< 0.001. Conclusion: This study shows that traditional backlit ETDRS and A-ETDRS charts are functionally equivalent to each other under a variety of testing conditions, mimicking both clinical and research applications. Additional benefits of the automated system over the backlit charts include: the ability to calibrate the system precisely, faster testing and scoring times combined, and less chance for error to enter into the conversion of the raw data into logMAR, letter, or Snellen scores. For all of these reasons, Automated-ETDRS testing is preferred. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: pictorial research tables/charts Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|