Comparison of LogMAR Eye charts with angular vision for visually impaired: the Berkeley rudimentary vision test vs LogMAR One target Landolt ring Eye chart

Miwa, Marie; Iwanami, Masaki; Oba, Mari S.; Mizuki, Nobuhisa; Nishida, Tomomi

doi:10.1007/s00417-013-2469-2

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Optotypes requiring gap recognition, rather than identification, are a valid alternative. 14,15 An attempt was made at measuring low vision by formalizing assessment of different aspects of light and motion perception. However, these tests did not produce a measure of vision in logMAR that was comparable to other visual acuity tests.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Randomized Crossover Study to Assess the Usability of Two New Vision Tests in Patients with Low Vision

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Significance: Well established charts such as ETDRS are able to quantify visual acuity (VA) with a low cut-off of 1.6 logMAR. Below this point, non-quantitative measures, such as count fingers, hand movements and light perception are used. There is a need for more reproducible, comparable and reliable ways to measure VA changes in this patient cohort.Purpose: To examine and compare the ability of the Berkeley Rudimentary Vision Test (BRVT) and the Freiburg Acuity Test (FrACT) to quantify VA in low vision patients who score non-numerical VAs in standard charts.Methods: Fifty adult participants with VA≤1.0 logMAR in both eyes were recruited from the Oxford Eye Hospital, UK. Correlation between FrACT and BRVT results, as well as the correlation between VA and daily living activities were analysed statistically. Potential predictors of differences were investigated.Results: BRVT was significantly faster to conduct (P = 0.002), but FrACT was able to quantify vision numerically in a greater proportion of eyes. The kappa agreement between tests was 0.26. The difference increased systematically with the VA reduction (P < 0.0001).The Bland-Altman analysis showed a skew to measurement of lower logMAR VA indicating better vision measured on the FrACT. The only significant predictor of difference between the tests was binocular VA (coefficient = -0.445, P = 0.001).Conclusions: Both tests are suitable for a very low vision population. The BRVT is a faster test to administer, but FrACT provides a numerical result in more eyes. The poor inter-test repeatability indicates they cannot be used interchangeably. The BRVT generally reported poorer vision than the FrACT. The medium of presentation, such as a computer screen or externally lit print medium, is likely to be the biggest factor in these differences and warrants further investigation.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Randomized Crossover Study to Assess the Usability of Two New Vision Tests in Patients with Low Vision

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Getting a grip on the resilience to blur: The impact of simulated vision loss on a visually guided combat sports interaction

Krabben

Helden

Kalisvaart

et al. 2021

Psychology of Sport and Exercise

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparison of LogMAR Eye charts with angular vision for visually impaired: the Berkeley rudimentary vision test vs LogMAR One target Landolt ring Eye chart

Abstract: The BRVT and logMAR LEC are reliable visual acuity measurement tools. Moreover, the BRVT is potentially effective in quantifying visual acuity of the more severe visually impaired patients.

Cited by 2 publications

References 20 publications

A Randomized Crossover Study to Assess the Usability of Two New Vision Tests in Patients with Low Vision

A Randomized Crossover Study to Assess the Usability of Two New Vision Tests in Patients with Low Vision

Getting a grip on the resilience to blur: The impact of simulated vision loss on a visually guided combat sports interaction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About