Computerized repeating and averaging improve the test-retest variability of ETDRS visual acuity measurements: Implications for sensitivity and specificity

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 52, Issue 13, 2011, Pages 9397-9402

  Shah, Nilpa ^a   Laidlaw, D Alistair H ^a,b   Shah, Shaheen P ^c   Sivasubramaniam, Selvaraj ^c   Bunce, Catey ^d   Cousens, Simon ^c  

^a ST THOMAS HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b MAIDSTONE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

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

^d MOORFIELDS EYE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; AVERAGING; CATARACT; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETINA DISEASE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UVEITIS; VISUAL ACUITY; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FOLLOW UP; INFORMATION PROCESSING; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARD; VISION TEST; VISUAL DISORDER;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VISION DISORDERS; VISION TESTS; VISUAL ACUITY; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84856344197     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: 15525783     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.11-7797     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. 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.
2. 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;85:432-436.
3. Arditi A, Cagenello R. On the statistical reliability of letter-chart visual acuity measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1993;34: 120-129.
4. Beck RW, Moke PS, Turpin AH, et al. A computerized method of visual acuity testing: adaptation of the Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study testing protocol. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;135: 194-205.
5. Lovie-Kitchen JE. Validity and reliability of visual acuity measurements. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1988;8:363-370.
6. Reeves BC, Wood JM, Hill AR. Reliability of high-and low-contrast letter charts. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1993;13:17-26.
7. Elliott DB, Sheridan M. The use of accurate visual acuity measurements in clinical anti-cataract formulation trials. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1988;8:397-401.
8. Vanden Bosch ME, Wall M. Visual acuity scored by the letter-byletter or probit methods has lower retest variability than the line assignment method. Eye. 1997;11:411-417.
9. Siderov J, Tiu AL. Variability of measurements of visual acuity in a large eye clinic. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1999;77:673-676.
10. Reeves BC, Wood JM, Hill AR. Vistech VCTS 6500 charts-withinand between-session reliability. Optom Vis Sci. 1991;68:728-737.
11. Waring GO III. Standard graphs for reporting refractive surgery. J Refract Surg. 2000;16:459-466.
12. Csaky KG, Richman EA, Ferris FL III. Report from the NEI/FDA ophthalmic clinical trial design and endpoints symposium. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:479-489.
13. Colquitt JL, Jones J, Tan SC, Takeda A, Clegg AJ, Price A. Ranibizumab and pegaptanib for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2008;16:iii-iv, ix-201.
14. Lalwani GA, Rosenfeld PJ, Fung AE, et al. A variable-dosing regimen with intravitreal ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: year 2 of the PrONTO study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009;148:43-58.
15. Patel PJ, Chen FK, Rubin GS, Tufail A. Intersession repeatability of visual acuity scores in age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:4347-4352.
16. 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: 3278-3281.
17. Rosser DA, Murdoch IE, Fitzke FW, Laidlaw DA. Improving on ETDRS acuities: design and results for a computerised thresholding device. Eye. 2003;17:701-706.
18. Laidlaw DA, Tailor V, Shah N, Atamian S, Harcourt C. Validation of a computerised logMAR visual acuity measurement system (COMPlog): comparison with ETDRS and the electronic ETDRS testing algorithm in adults and amblyopic children. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008;92:241-244.
19. Shah N, Laidlaw DA, Brown G, Robson C. Effect of letter separation on computerised visual acuity measurements: comparison with the gold standard early treatment diabetic retinopathy study (ETDRS) chart. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2010;30: 200-203.
20. Cotter SA, Chu RH, Chandler DL, et al. Reliability of the electronic early treatment diabetic retinopathy study testing protocol in children 7 to <13 years old. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003; 136:655-661.
21. Moke PS, Turpin AH, Beck RW, et al. Computerized method of visual acuity testing: adaptation of the amblyopia treatment study visual acuity testing protocol. Am J Ophthalmol. 2001;132:903-909.
22. Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study: Manual of Operations. Baltimore: ETDRS Coordinating Center, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine; 2008: chap 12: 27-29.
23. Ferris FL III, Kassoff A, Bresnick GH, Bailey I. New visual acuity charts for clinical research. Am J Ophthalmol. 1982;94:91-96.
24. Bullimore MA, Zadnik K. Consistency between visual acuity scores obtained at different test distances. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122: 1729-1731.
25. Bailey IL, Bullimore MA, Raasch TW, Taylor HR. Clinical grading and the effects of scaling. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1991;32:422-432.
26. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1: 307-310.
27. Cousens SN, Rosser DA, Murdoch IE, Laidlaw DA. A simple model to predict the sensitivity to change of visual acuity measurements. Optom Vis Sci. 2004;81:673-677.
28. Kiser AK, Mladenovich D, Eshraghi F, Bourdeau D, Dagnelie G. Reliability and consistency of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity measures in advanced eye disease. Optom Vis Sci. 2005;82:946-954.