Repeatability of visual function measures in age-related macular degeneration

  • Tariq Aslam
  • Sajjad Mahmood
  • Konstantinos Balaskas
  • Niall Patton
  • Rajeev G. Tanawade
  • Shi Zhuan Tan
  • Stephen A. Roberts
  • Jeremy Parkes
  • Paul N. Bishop
Retinal Disorders



To assess repeatability of visual function measures in patients with early, intermediate or late age-related macular degeneration (AMD) without active neovascular disease in the study eye, but active neovascular AMD in the fellow eye.


One hundred subjects from an ongoing trial were screened for this study in which their LogMAR acuity, contrast sensitivity and reading performance were assessed using standardised protocols by trained optometrists. The same measures were repeated one month later and repeatability of the visual functions assessed.


Data from 83 subjects satisfied inclusion criteria for analysis. Coefficient of repeatability was 14.9 letters for LogMAR visual acuity , 7.2 letters for Pelli Robson contrast sensitivity, 0.72 for LogMAR reading acuity, 110.4 words/ min for reading speed and 0.67 for LogMAR critical print size. Intraclass correlation coefficients allowed comparison between measures and were found to be 0.96 for LogMAR visual acuity, 0.93 for contrast sensitivity, 0.75 for LogMAR reading acuity, 0.79 for reading speed and 0.74 for LogMAR critical print size. Coefficients of variation were 9.4 %, 10.7 %, 48.4 %, 28.4 % and 31.8 % respectively.


We found coefficients of repeatability that concurred with previous studies demonstrating variability of visual functions in patients with AMD. In addition, we found intraclass correlation coefficients to be better with visual acuity and contrast sensitivity than with measures of reading performance.


Age-related macular degeneration contrast sensitivity distance visual acuity reading performance repeatability 



We gratefully acknowledge financial support from Greater Manchester Primary Care Trusts and the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre.

Conflict of Interests

None of the authors declare any proprietary interests


  1. 1.
    Arditi A, Cagenello R (1993) On the statistical reliability of letter-chart visual acuity measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 34:120–129PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Klein R, Wang Q, Klein BE, Moss SE, Meuer SM (1995) The relationship of age-related maculopathy, cataract, and glaucoma to visual acuity. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 36:182–191PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lalwani GA, Rosenfeld PJ, Fung AE, Dubovy SR, Michels S, Feuer W, Davis JL, Flynn HW Jr, Esquiabro M (2009) A variable-dosing regimen with intravitreal ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: year 2 of the PrONTO Study. Am J Ophthalmol 148:43–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Neelam K, Nolan J, Chakravarthy U, Beatty S (2009) Psychophysical function in age-related maculopathy. Surv Ophthalmol 54:167–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rosser DA, Cousens SN, Murdoch IE, Fitzke FW, Laidlaw DA (2003) How sensitive to clinical change are ETDRS logMAR visual acuity measurements? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44:3278–3281PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Midena E, Angeli CD, Blarzino MC, Valenti M, Segato T (1997) Macular function impairment in eyes with early age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 38:469–475PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rubin GS, Turano K (1994) Low vision reading with sequential word presentation. Vision Res 34:1723–1733PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sunness JS, Applegate CA, Haselwood D, Rubin GS (1996) Fixation patterns and reading rates in eyes with central scotomas from advanced atrophic age-related macular degeneration and Stargardt disease. Ophthalmology 103:1458–1466PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Patel PJ, Chen FK, Da Cruz L, Rubin GS, Tufail A, ABC Trial Study Group (2011) Contrast sensitivity outcomes in the ABC Trial: a randomized trial of bevacizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 52:3089–3093PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Patel PJ, Bunce C, Tufail A (2008) A randomised, double-masked phase III/IV study of the efficacy and safety of Avastin(R) (Bevacizumab) intravitreal injections compared to standard therapy in subjects with choroidal neovascularisation secondary to age-related macular degeneration: clinical trial design. Trials 9:56PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Patel PJ, Chen FK, Rubin GS, Tufail A (2008) Intersession repeatability of visual acuity scores in age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 49:4347–4352PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Patel PJ, Chen FK, Rubin GS, Tufail A (2009) Intersession repeatability of contrast sensitivity scores in age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 50:2621–2625PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Patel PJ, Chen FK, Da Cruz L, Rubin GS, Tufail A (2011) Test-retest variability of reading performance metrics using MNREAD in patients with age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 52:3854–3859PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kottner J, Audige L, Brorson S, Donner A, Gajewski BJ, Hróbjartsson A, Roberts C, Shoukri M, Streiner DL (2011) Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) were proposed. J Clin Epidemiol 64:96–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bird AC, Bressler NM, Bressler SB, Chisholm IH, Coscas G, Davis MD, de Jong PT, Klaver CC, Klein BE, Klein R (1995) An international classification and grading system for age-related maculopathy and age-related macular degeneration. The International ARM Epidemiological Study Group. Surv Ophthalmol 39(5):367–374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Carkeet A (2001) Modeling logMAR visual acuity scores: effects of termination rules and alternative forced-choice options. Optom Vis Sci 78:529–538PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Elliott DB, Sanderson K, Conkey A (1990) The reliability of the Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity chart. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 10:21–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical method for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet i:307–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    British Standards Institution (1979) Precision of test methods, part 1: guide for the determination of repeatability and reproducibility for a standard test method. BS 5497, Part 1. BSI, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tulving E, Gold C (1963) Stimulus information and contextual information as determinants of tachistoscopic recognition of words. J Exp Psychol 66:319–327PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Doris N, Hart PM, Chakravarthy U, McCleland J, Stevenson M, Hudson C, Jackson J (2001) Relation between macular morphology and visual function in patients with choroidal neovascularisation of age-related macular degeneration. Br J Ophthalmol 85:184–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kiser AK, Mladenovich D, Eshraghi F, Bourdeau D, Dagnelie G (2005) Reliability and consistency of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity measures in advanced eye disease. Optom Vis Sci 82(11):946–954PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Blackhurst DW, Maguire MG (1989) Reproducibility of refraction and visual acuity measurement under a standard protocol. The Macular Photocoagulation Study Group. Retina 9(3):163–169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tariq Aslam
    • 1
    • 3
  • Sajjad Mahmood
    • 1
  • Konstantinos Balaskas
    • 1
    • 5
  • Niall Patton
    • 1
  • Rajeev G. Tanawade
    • 1
  • Shi Zhuan Tan
    • 1
  • Stephen A. Roberts
    • 4
  • Jeremy Parkes
    • 1
  • Paul N. Bishop
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Manchester Royal Eye HospitalManchester Academic Health Science CentreManchesterUK
  2. 2.Centre for Advanced Discovery and Experimental Therapeutics (CADET), Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustManchester Academic Health Science CentreManchesterUK
  3. 3.Centre for Ophthalmology and Vision Research, Institute of Human DevelopmentUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK
  4. 4.Centre for Biostatistics, Institute of Population HealthUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK
  5. 5.Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK

Personalised recommendations