A simple model to predict the sensitivity to change of visual acuity measurements

Optometry and Vision Science

Volumn 81, Issue 9, 2004, Pages 673-677

  Cousens, Simon N ^a   Rosser, Daniel A ^b,c   Murdoch, Ian E ^b   Laidlaw, David A ^d  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c MOORFIELDS EYE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^d GUY'S AND ST THOMAS' NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR); Sensitivity; Specificity; Vision tests; Visual acuity measurement

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTIC WAVE REFRACTION; DATA REDUCTION; DIFFRACTION GRATINGS; DISEASES; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; MEDICAL IMAGING;

ACUITY CHANGES; TEXT-RETEST VARIABILITY (TRV);

VISION;

ARTICLE; LOGARITHM OF THE MINIMUM ANGLE OF RESOLUTION; OPTICAL RESOLUTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REFERENCE VALUE; RELIABILITY; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL MODEL; VISION TEST; VISUAL ACUITY;

EID: 4544270853     PISSN: 10405488     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.opx.0000144745.42600.76     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Elliott DB, Sheridan M. The use of accurate visual acuity measurements in clinical anti-cataract formulation trials. Ophthal Physiol Opt 1988;8:397-401.
2. Arditi A, Cagenello R. On the statistical reliability of letter-chart visual acuity measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1993;34:120-9.
3. Lovie-Kitchin JE. Validity and reliability of visual acuity measurements. Ophthal Physiol Opt 1988;8:363-70.
4. Reeves BC, Wood JM, Hill AR. Reliability of high- and low-contrast letter charts. Ophthal Physiol Opt 1993;13:17-26.
5. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307-10.
6. 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;11:411-7.
7. Bailey IL, Bullimore MA, Raasch TW, Taylor HR. Clinical grading and the effects of scaling. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1991;32:422-32.
8. Elliott DB, Sanderson K, Conkey A. The reliability of the Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity chart. Ophthal Physiol Opt 1990;10:21-4.
9. Reeves BC, Wood JM, Hill AR. Vistech VCTS 6500 charts-within-and between-session reliability. Optom Vis Sci 1991;68:728-37.
10. Reeves BC, Hill AR, Aspinall PA. The clinical significance of change. Ophthal Physiol Opt 1987;7:441-6.
11. Rosser DA, Cousens SN, Murdoch IE, Fitzke FW, Laidlaw DA. How sensitive to clinical change are ETDRS logMAR visual acuity measurements? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003;44:3278-81.
12. Ferris FL Jr, Kassoff A, Bresnick GH, Bailey I. New visual acuity charts for clinical research. Am J Ophthalmol 1982;94:91-6.
13. 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;85:432-6.
14. National Acadamy of Sciences - National Research Council Committee on Vision. Recommended standard procedures for the clinical measurement and specification of visual acuity. Report of working group 39. Adv Ophthalmol 1980;41:103-48.
15. Bailey IL, Lovie JE. New design principles for visual acuity letter charts. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1976;53:740-5.
16. Hazel CA, Elliott DB. The dependency of logMAR visual acuity measurements on chart design and scoring rule. Optom Vis Sci 2002;79:788-92.
17. Rosser DA, Murdoch IE, Cousens SN. The effect of optical defocus on the test-retest variability of visual acuity measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004;45:1076-9.