Improving on ETDRS acuities: Design and results for a computerised thresholding device

Eye

Volumn 17, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 701-706

  Rosser, Dan A ^a,b   Murdoch, I E ^a   Fitzke, F W ^a   Laidlaw, D A H ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b Moorfields Hospital London NHS Foundation Trust   (United Kingdom)

^c ST THOMAS HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

ETDRS; logMAR; Visual acuity

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; CLINICAL STUDY; COMPUTER SYSTEM; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; RELIABILITY; STANDARDIZATION; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; VALIDATION PROCESS; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL SYSTEM EXAMINATION;

EID: 0141851345     PISSN: 0950222X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/sj.eye.6700496     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Bailey L, Lovie E. New design principles for visual acuity letter charts. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1976; 53: 740-745.
2. Ferris FL, Kassoff A, Bresnick GH, Bailey I. New visual acuity charts for clinical research. Am J Ophthalmol 1982; 94(1): 91-96.
3. National Acadamy of Sciences - National Research Council Committee on Vision. Report of working group 39: recommended standard procedures for the clinical measurement and specification of visual acuity. Adv Ophthalmol 1980; 41: 103.
4. Ferris FL, Bailey I. Standardizing the measurement of visual acuity for clinical research studies: guidelines from the Eye Care Technology Forum. Ophthalmology 1996; 103(1): 181-182.
5. Siderov J, Tiu AL. Variability of measurements of visual acuity in a large eye clinic. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1999; 77(6): 673-676.
6. Lovie Kitchin JE. Validity and reliability of visual acuity measurements. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1988; 8(4): 363-370.
7. Reeves B, Wood J, Hill A. Vistech VCTS 6500 charts, within-and between-session reliability. Optom Vis Sci 1991; 68(9): 728-737.
8. Rosser DA, Laidlaw DA, Murdoch IE. The development of a 'reduced logMAR' visual acuity chart for use in routine clinical practice. Br J Ophthalmol 2001; 85(4): 432-436.
9. Gordon MO, Schechtman KB, Davis LJ, McMahon TT, Schornack J, Zadnik K. Visual acuity repeatability in keratoconus: impact on sample size. Collaborative Longitudinal Evaluation of Keratoconus (CLEK) Study Group. Optom Vis Sci 1998; 75(4): 249-257.
10. Bland J, Altman D. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; i: 307-310.
11. Carkeet A. Modeling logMAR visual acuity scores: effects of termination rules and alternative forced-choice options. Optom Vis Sci 2001; 78(7): 529-538.
12. Bailey IL, Bullimore MA, Raasch TW, Taylor HR. Clinical grading and the effects of scaling. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1991; 32(2): 422-432.
13. Vanden Bosch ME, Wall M. Visual acuity scored by the letter-by-letter or probit methods has lower retest variability than the line assignment method. Eye 1997; 11: 411-417.
14. Elliott DB, Sheridan M. The use of accurate visual acuity measurements in clinical anti-cataract formulation trials. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1988; 8(4): 397-401.
15. Arditi A, Cagenello R. On the statistical reliability of letter-chart visual acuity measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1993; 34(1): 120-129.
16. Reeves BC, Wood JM, Hill AR. Reliability of high- and low-contrast letter charts. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1993; 13(1): 17-26.