Random measurement error in visual acuity measurement in clinical settings

Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica

Volumn 83, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 328-332

  Leinonen, Jaakko ^a   Laakkonen, Eero ^b   Laatikainen, Leila ^c  

^a VAASA CENTRAL HOSPITAL   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TURKU   (Finland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

Author keywords

Cataract; Pseudophakia; Refractive error; Variability; Visual acuity; Visual acuity charts

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CATARACT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DISEASE COURSE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OPTOMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REFRACTION ERROR; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; VISION; VISION TEST; VISUAL ACUITY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CATARACT; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PSEUDOPHAKIA; REFRACTIVE ERRORS; VISION TESTS; VISUAL ACUITY;

EID: 21044454476     PISSN: 13953907     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0420.2005.00469.x     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Arditi A & Caganello R (1993): On the statistical reliability of letter chart visual acuity measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 34: 120-129.
2. Bailey IL (1998): Visual acuity. In: Benjamin WJ (ed). Borish's Clinical Refraction. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company 179-201.
3. Bland M (1988a): An Introduction to Medical Statistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press 110.
4. Bland M (1988b): Clinical measurement. In: An Introduction to Medical Statistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press 276-283.
5. Bland M & Altman D (1986): Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1: 307-310.
6. Camparini M, Cassinari P, Ferrigno L & Macaluso C (2001): ETDRS-fast: implementing psychophysical adaptive methods to standardized visual acuity measurement with ETDRS charts. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 42: 1226-1231.
7. Ciuffreda KJ (1998): Accommodation, the pupil and presbyopia. In: Benjamin WJ (ed). Borish's Clinical Refraction. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company 98-101.
8. Elliott DB & Sheridan M (1988): The use of accurate visual measurements in clinical anti-cataract formulation trials. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 8: 397-401.
9. Gibson RA & Sanderson HF (1980): Observer variation in ophthalmology. Br J Ophthalmol 64: 457-460.
10. Harris WF (1990): Statistical inference on mean dioptric power: hypothesis testing and confidence regions. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 10: 363-372.
11. Holladay JT, Lynn M, Waring GO III, Gemmill M, Keehn GC & Brooke F (1991): The relationship of visual acuity, refractive error and pupil size after radial keratotomy. Arch Ophthalmol 109: 70-76.
12. Keating MP (1980): An easier method to obtain the sphere, cylinder and axis from an off-axis dioptric power matrix. Am J Optom Physiol Optics 57: 734-737.
13. Klein R, Klein BE, Moss SE & DeMets D (1983): Inter-observer variation in refraction and visual acuity measurement using a standardized protocol. Ophthalmology 90: 1357-1359.
14. McGraw PV, Winn B, Gray LS & Elliott DB (2000): Improving the reliability of visual acuity measures in young children. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 20: 173-184.
15. MedCalc Manual (1999): URL http://www.medcalc.be/manual/mpage13-06.php
16. Michaels D (1975): Visual acuity. In: Visual Optics and Refraction, a Clinical Approach. Saint Louis, Missain: Mosby 170-180.
17. Raasch TW, Bailey IL & Bullimore MA (1998): Repeatability of visual acuity measurement. Optom Vis Sci 75: 342-348.
18. Rosser DA, Laidlaw DA & Murdoch IE (2001): The development of a 'reduced logMAR' visual acuity chart for use in routine clinical practice. Br J Ophthalmol 85: 432-436.
19. Siderov J & Tiu AL (1999): Variability of measurements of visual acuity in a large eye clinic. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 77: 673-676.
20. Van den Brom HJ, Kooijman AC, Blanksma JL & van Rij G (1995): Measurement of visual acuity with two different charts: a comparison of results and repeatability in patients with cataract. Doc Ophthalmol 90: 61-66.
21. Vanden Bosch ME & Wall M (1997): Visual acuity scored by the letter-by-letter or probit methods has lower retest variability than the line assignment method. Eye 11: 411-417.