Advertisement

Assessing visual acuity across five disease types: ETDRS charts are faster with clinical outcome comparable to Landolt Cs

  • Simone Koenig
  • Felix Tonagel
  • Ulrich Schiefer
  • Michael Bach
  • Sven P. Heinrich
Basic Science

Abstract

Background

Given the diversity of visual acuity tests being employed across the world, we compared two frequently applied tests: ETDRS charts and an eight-orientation projected Landolt C test in accordance with ISO 8596 and DIN 58220 part 3. The goals of the investigation were to determine (i) test agreement and (ii) test–retest reliability, to assess (iii) test durations, and (iv) the acceptance of the tests by the examinees as well as the subjects’ coping with the tests as rated by the examiner.

Methods

Seventy-five adult subjects with a visual acuity of ≥0.2 (4/20) were included in one of the following groups: normal, media opacity, maculopathy, optic neuropathy, (post)chiasmal lesion, or amblyopia. Visual acuity testing was carried out monocularly, in balanced randomized order and in two runs for each test on the same eye, applying forced choice.

Results

Agreement: Within each group, all tests were performed similarly, within ±0.048 logMAR. Reliability: Across all subject groups, with a probability of 95 %, test–retest differences were <0.18 logMAR for both ETDRS and Landolt tests. Duration: The Landolt test lasted, on average, 1.8 times longer than ETDRS charts (p < 0.001). Acceptance: Examinees preferred the ETDRS test (p < 0.001), the examiner on average had no preference.

Conclusion

The Landolt C test and the ETDRS test yielded comparable results in visual acuity and test–retest reliability in all disease groups. The ETDRS test was usually faster and more accepted by both examiners and examinees than the Landolt test.

Keywords

Visual acuity Test–retest reliability Reproducibility Landolt C ETDRS chart Duration Acceptance Comparison Agreement 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We express our gratitude to the Deutsche Ophthalmologische Gesellschaft (DOG), which supported this research project financially. We thank our subjects for their participation in this study. Also thanks to the staff of the neuro-ophthalmologic department of the University Eye Hospital Tuebingen, where this study was carried out, for their support.

Conflict of interest statement

Author Ulrich Schiefer is consultant for HAAG-STREIT Inc., Koeniz, Switzerland and SERVIER Inc., Suresness, France.

All other authors: conflict of Interest—None.

References

  1. 1.
    Bailey IL, Lovie JE (1976) New design principles for visual acuity letter charts. Am J Optom Physiol Optic 53:740–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    NEI Clinical Studies (2000) Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS). http://www.nei.nih.gov/neitrials/static/study53.asp. Accessed 14 Feb 2014
  3. 3.
    Kaiser PK (2009) Prospective evaluation of visual acuity assessment: a comparison of snellen versus ETDRS charts in clinical practice (an AOS thesis). Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 107:311–324PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    International Organization for Standardization (2009) ISO 8596:2009 Ophthalmic optics—Visual acuity testing—Standard optotype and its presentation. http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=52487. Accessed 10 Sep 2013
  5. 5.
    Deutsches Institut für Normung (2013) DIN 58220 Teil 3—Sehschärfebestimmung: Prüfung für Gutachten. http://www.nafuo.din.de/cmd?level=tpl-art-detailansicht&artid=189487179. Accessed 14 Feb 2014
  6. 6.
    Bach M (2013) Freiburg Visual Acuity & Contrast Test, homepage. In: Freibg. Vis. Test FrACT. http://michaelbach.de/fract/. Accessed 5 Jun 2013
  7. 7.
    Kuo H-K, Kuo M-T, Tiong IS, Wu PC, Chen YJ, Chen CH (2011) Visual acuity as measured with Landolt C chart and Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 249:601–605PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Teichler G (2009) Untersuchungen zum Vergleich der Sehzeichen Landolt-Ring, E-Haken und Sloan-Buchstaben (ETDRS-Letters) sowie zur Reproduzierbarkeit der Visusbestimmung (with English summary). Thesis <http://geb.uni-giessen.de/geb/volltexte/2009/7249/>, Justus-Liebig-Universität
  9. 9.
    World Medical Association (1964) Declaration of Helsinki—Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/. Accessed 26 Apr 2013
  10. 10.
    Deutsche Ophthalmologische Gesellschaft (2013) Empfehlungen der DOG zur Qualitätssicherung bei sinnesphysiologischen Untersuchungen und Geräten. 7–23Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kingdom FAA, Prins N (2009) Psychophysics: a practical introduction. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Heinrich SP, Krüger K, Bach M (2011) The dynamics of practice effects in an optotype acuity task. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 249:1319–1326Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Aitken RC (1969) Measurement of feelings using visual analogue scales. Proc R Soc Med 62:989–993PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wesemann W, Schiefer U, Bach M (2010) New DIN norms for determination of visual acuity. Ophthalmol Z Dtsch Ophthalmol Ges 107:821–826Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Steinbeis Transfer Center Biomedical Optics and Function Tests—ETDRS Visual Acuity Tester. http://www.uak.medizin.uni-tuebingen.de/stz/etdrs.htm. Accessed 26 Apr 2013
  16. 16.
    Ferris FL 3rd, Kassoff A, Bresnick GH, Bailey I (1982) New visual acuity charts for clinical research. Am J Ophthalmol 94:91–96PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Precision Vision Revised 2000 Series ETDRS Translucent Eye Charts for use in clinical studies and low vision evaluation. http://precision-vision.com/index.cfm/category/36/revised-2000-series-etdrs-charts.cfm?CFID=38487182&CFTOKEN=743288e2a63ab233-5A83B749-DB92-AA06-57F3F9DBE8BB3A57. Accessed 7 Aug 2013
  18. 18.
    Krzanowski W (2010) An introduction to statistical modelling, 1. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sheskin DJ (2007) Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures, 4. Chapman & Hall / CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bland JM, Altman DG (1999) Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 8:135–160PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cleveland WS, McGill R (1984) The many faces of a scatterplot. J Am Stat Assoc 79:807–822Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Petersen J (1993) Erroneous vision determination and quantitative effects. Ophthalmol Z Dtsch Ophthalmol Ges 90:533–538Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rosser DA, Cousens SN, Murdoch IE, Fitzke FW, Laidlaw DAH (2003) How sensitive to clinical change are ETDRS logMAR visual acuity measurements? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44:3278–3281PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Arditi A, Cagenello R (1993) On the statistical reliability of letter-chart visual acuity measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 34:120–129PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rassow B, Wang Y (1999) Correlation of letter optotypes with Landolt ring for different degrees of visual acuity. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 215:119–126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Becker R, Teichler G, Gräf M (2011) Comparison of visual acuity measured using Landolt-C and ETDRS charts in healthy subjects and patients with various eye diseases. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 228:864–867PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Laidlaw DAH, Tailor V, Shah N, Atamian S, Harcourt C (2008) 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 92:241–244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Camparini M, Cassinari P, Ferrigno L (2001) ETDRS-fast: implementing psychophysical adaptive methods to standardized visual acuity measurement with ETDRS charts. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 42:1226–1231PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lim LA, Frost NA, Powell RJ, Hewson P (2010) Comparison of the ETDRS logMAR, “compact reduced logMar” and Snellen charts in routine clinical practice. Eye (London England) 24:673–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rosser DA, Laidlaw DA, Murdoch IE (2001) The development of a “reduced logMAR” visual acuity chart for use in routine clinical practice. Br J Ophthalmol 85:432–436PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simone Koenig
    • 1
  • Felix Tonagel
    • 1
  • Ulrich Schiefer
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Michael Bach
    • 4
    • 5
  • Sven P. Heinrich
    • 4
  1. 1.Centre for OphthalmologyUniversity Eye HospitalTuebingenGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Ophthalmic ResearchUniversity of TuebingenTuebingenGermany
  3. 3.Competence Center “Vision Research”University of Applied SciencesAalenGermany
  4. 4.Section Visual Function / Electrophysiology, Eye CenterFreiburg UniversityFreiburgGermany
  5. 5.FreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations