Comparison of the ETDRS logMAR, compact reduced logMar and Snellen charts in routine clinical practice

Eye

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 673-677

  Lim, L A ^a   Frost, N A ^b   Powell, R J ^c   Hewson, P ^d  

^a ROYAL DEVON AND EXETER NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^b TORBAY HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c ROYAL DEVON AND EXETER HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF PLYMOUTH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Compact reduced logMAR; LogMAR; Reliability; Snellen; Test retest variability

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CATARACT; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPACT REDUCED LOGMAR CHART; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORNEA INJURY; EPIRETINAL MEMBRANE; EYE DISEASE; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HERPES SIMPLEX KERATITIS; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTRAOCULAR HYPERTENSION; MALE; RETINA MACULA AGE RELATED DEGENERATION; SNELLEN TEST TYPE; TEST RETEST RELIABILITY; VISION TEST; VISUAL ACUITY;

EID: 77951096371     PISSN: 0950222X     EISSN: 14765454     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/eye.2009.147     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. McGraw P, Winn B, Whitaker D. Reliability of the Snellen chart. BMJ 1995; 310: 1481-1482.
2. Bailey IL, Lovie JE. New Design Principles for visual acuity letter charts. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1976; 53: 740-745.
3. Ferris III FL, Kassoff A, Bresnick GH, Bailey I. New visual acuity charts for clinical research. Am J Ophthalmol 1982; 94: 91-96.
4. Carkeet A. Modeling logMAR visual acuity scores: effects of termination rules and alternative forced-choice options. Optom Vis Sci 2001; 78: 529-538.
5. Rosser DA, Laidlaw DAH, Murdoch IE. The development of a 'reduced logMAR' visual acuity chart for use in routine clinical practice. Br J Ophthalmol 2001; 85: 432-436.
6. Laidlaw DA, Abbott A, Rosser DA. Development of a clinically feasible logMAR alternative to the Snellen chart: performance of the 'compact reduced logMAR' visual acuity chart in amblyopic children. Br J Ophthalmol 2003; 87: 1232-1234.
7. Bland J M, Altman DG. Statistics Notes: Measurement error? BMJ 1996; 313: 744.
8. Gibson SA, Sanderson HF. Observer variation in ophthalmology. Br J Ophthalmol 1980; 64: 457-460.
9. Arditi A, Cagenello R. On the statistical reliability of letter chart visual acuity measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1993; 34: 120-129.
10. Bailey IL, Bullimore MA, Raash TW, Taylor HR. Clinical grading and the effects of scaling. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1991; 32: 422-432.
11. Elliot DB, Sheridon M. The use of accurate visual acuity measurements in clinical anti-cataract formulation trials. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1988; 8: 397-401.
12. Hazel CA, Elliott DB. The Dependency of LogMAR Visual Acuity Measurements on Chart Design and Scoring Rule. Optometry and Vision Science 2002; 79: 788-792.
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. 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(8): 3278-3281.
15. Camparini M, Cassinari P, Ferrigno L, Macaluso C. ETDRSFast: Implementing psychophysical adaptive methods to standardized visual acuity measurement with ETDRS charts. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2001; 42(6): 1226-1231.
16. Siderov J, Tiu AL. Variability of measurements of visual acuity in a large eye clinic. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1999; 77: 673-676.