Validation of printed and computerised crowded Kay picture logMAR tests against gold standard ETDRS acuity test chart measurements in adult and amblyopic paediatric subjects

Shah, Nilpa; Laidlaw, D A H; Rashid, Safina; Hysi, Pirro G.

doi:10.1038/eye.2011.333

Cited by 37 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The programme consists of an algorithm involving 'range finding', and 'thresholding' as has been described in detail in previous publications. 13,22 The range finding component essentially involves the presentation of sequentially smaller, singlecrowded Sloan letters to determine the approximate threshold acuity. This is followed by the 'thresholding' phase in which lines of Sloan letters surrounded by a crowding box are presented.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance of a computerised visual acuity measurement device in subjects with age-related macular degeneration: comparison with gold standard ETDRS chart measurements

Bokinni

Shah

Maguire

et al. 2015

Eye

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The aim of the study was to compare the performance of two different COMPlog computerised, single letter scoring, visual acuity (VA) measurements against gold standard Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart measurements in patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD). One computerised algorithm presented five and the other presented three letters per line; both computerised algorithms utilised half, rather than the full-letter width spacing standard on ETDRS charts that might induce crowding, fixation problems, increased test-retest variability (TRV), and bias. Methods Fifty patients with AMD (mean age 83 years) underwent timed test and retest VA measurements using ETDRS charts and COMPlog five (C5) and three (C3) letters per line computerised VA measurement algorithms. All tests utilised single-letter scoring methodology. Bland and Altman methods were employed. Performance was measured in terms of bias, TRV, and test time.Results The C5 and C3 scores showed no bias compared with the ETDRS chart measurements. C5 measurements had equal TRV to the ETDRS chart (±0.13 logMAR) with similar median test times (105 and 96 s, respectively). C3 measurements were slightly more variable (TRV ± 0.17 logMAR), but 30 s quicker than ETDRS chart measurements. Conclusions The closer letter spacing employed in COMPlog testing algorithms appears to have no adverse effect on VA measurements compared with the gold standard ETDRS chart in patients with AMD. The three letter per line testing algorithm facilitates faster testing but with a two letter increase in TRV.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance of a computerised visual acuity measurement device in subjects with age-related macular degeneration: comparison with gold standard ETDRS chart measurements

Bokinni

Shah

Maguire

et al. 2015

Eye

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nowadays, the Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) testing protocol is generally accepted as the gold standard of VA measurement in adults [8][9][10]. With regard to contrast sensitivity (CS), although the Pelli-Robson chart is considered the gold standard to compare optotype's based CS tests [11], currently there is not a commercial gold standard test to measure CS by sinusoidal gratings.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity screening with a new iPad application

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…6,7 Allen figures, Lighthouse characters, and the Sail Boat Chart are not standardized and are no longer recommended for use, nor are the Tumbling E or Landolt C charts, because a child of preschool age may not yet have developed the ability to express the orientation of these optotypes. HOTV symbols are easier for the young child to understand, as they are symmetric and not subject to letter reversal.…”

Section: Assessment Of Visual Acuity In Older Childrenmentioning

confidence: 99%