open access
Comparison between traditional and electronic ETDRS charts
Affiliations- Ophthalmic Surgery Unit, University Hospital of Ferarra, Cona, Ferrara, Italy
open access
Abstract
Background: The aim of the study was to compare the visual acuity (VA) score obtained in both normal subjects and patients with different eye diseases by using TOPCON CP-22 electronic ETDRS charts (i.e. E-ETDRS) and standard ETDRS charts (S-ETDRS).
Material and methods: The primary outcome of this observational prospective study was the difference in median VA score (in letters) recorded in 60 patients by using both E-ETDRS and S-ETDRS. There were 60 subjects enrolled in the study: 20 normal, 20 with diabetic retinopathy and 20 with age-related macular degeneration.
Results: Median number of letters read was 72.5 S-ETDR and 77 for E-ETDR (p < 0.01). A subgroup analysis disclosed that the difference in VA score between the 2 devices was more pronounced (p < 0.01) when considering healthy subjects compared to patients affected by diabetic retinopathy (p = 0.02) or age-related macular degeneration (p = 0.04).
Conclusions: Small but significant discrepancies between the 2 devices have been detected, especially when recording high VA values.
Abstract
Background: The aim of the study was to compare the visual acuity (VA) score obtained in both normal subjects and patients with different eye diseases by using TOPCON CP-22 electronic ETDRS charts (i.e. E-ETDRS) and standard ETDRS charts (S-ETDRS).
Material and methods: The primary outcome of this observational prospective study was the difference in median VA score (in letters) recorded in 60 patients by using both E-ETDRS and S-ETDRS. There were 60 subjects enrolled in the study: 20 normal, 20 with diabetic retinopathy and 20 with age-related macular degeneration.
Results: Median number of letters read was 72.5 S-ETDR and 77 for E-ETDR (p < 0.01). A subgroup analysis disclosed that the difference in VA score between the 2 devices was more pronounced (p < 0.01) when considering healthy subjects compared to patients affected by diabetic retinopathy (p = 0.02) or age-related macular degeneration (p = 0.04).
Conclusions: Small but significant discrepancies between the 2 devices have been detected, especially when recording high VA values.
Keywords
visual acuity measurements; electronic ETDRS charts; traditional ETDRS charts; age-related macular degeneration; diabetic retinopathy
About this articleTitle
Comparison between traditional and electronic ETDRS charts
Journal
Issue
Vol 5 (2020): Continuous Publishing
Article type
Original paper
Pages
46-50
Published online
2020-07-09
Page views
602
Article views/downloads
983
DOI
Bibliographic record
Ophthalmol J 2020;5:46-50.
Keywords
visual acuity measurements
electronic ETDRS charts
traditional ETDRS charts
age-related macular degeneration
diabetic retinopathy
Authors
Claudio Campa
References (9)- Ferris F, Kassoff A, Bresnick G, et al. New Visual Acuity Charts for Clinical Research. Am J Ophthalmol. 1982; 94(1): 91–96.
- 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(2): 194–205.
- 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(4): 1076–1079.
- Photodynamic therapy of subfoveal choroidal neovascularization in age-related macular degeneration with verteporfin: one-year results of 2 randomized clinical trials — TAP report. Treatment of age-related macular degeneration with photodynamic therapy (TAP) Study Group. Arch Ophthalmol. 1999; 117(10): 1329.
- Kaiser PK. Prospective evaluation of visual acuity assessment: a comparison of snellen versus ETDRS charts in clinical practice (An AOS Thesis). Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2009; 107: 311–324.
- Geddes M, McLean J, McMonnies C, et al. The variation of visual acuity with observation distance. Austral J Optometry. 1966; 49(6): 164–9.
- Lovie-Kitchin JE. Validity and reliability of visual acuity measurements. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1988; 8(4): 363–370.
- Arditi A, Cagenello R. On the statistical reliability of letter-chart visual acuity measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1993; 34(1): 120–129.
- Blackhurst DW, Maguire MG. Reproducibility of refraction and visual acuity measurement under a standard protocol. The Macular Photocoagulation Study Group. Retina. 1989; 9(3): 163–169.