Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology
Published in: Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 5/2015

01-05-2015 | Miscellaneous

Repeatability of mesopic visual acuity measurements using high- and low-contrast ETDRS letter charts

Authors: Ana Barrio, Beatriz Antona, María C. Puell

Published in: Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology | Issue 5/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the repeatability of mesopic high-contrast (HC) and low-contrast (LC) visual acuity (VA) measurements made at distance and near in healthy young individuals. While the repeatability of photopic VA is well-known, there is a lack of information with regard to the repeatability of VA measured under low luminance conditions.

Methods

In two different sessions 1 week apart, best-corrected monocular VA was determined using HC (96 %) and LC (10 %) ETDRS charts under mesopic luminance conditions (0.75 cd/m2) at distance (HCD, LCD) and near (HCN, LCN) in 47 healthy subjects aged 22.9 ± 6.8 years. Repeatability was estimated by the Bland and Altman method, whereby the mean difference (MD) and the 95 % limits of agreement were determined as the coefficient of repeatability (COR).

Results

Mean logMAR VA values were HCD = 0.09, LCD = 0.44, HCN = 0.21, and LCN = 0.57. Mean differences in measurements between sessions 1 and 2 were not significant, and low in clinical terms (≤1 letter). Repeatability was better for the distance measurements at both high and lowcontrast (COR HCD ±0.11 and COR LCD ±0.11 logMAR vs COR HCN ±0.15 and COR LCN ±0.16 logMAR), and MDs were also slightly closer to zero for the distance measurements. Similar repeatability was observed between HC and LC VA, both at distance and near.

Conclusions

In mesopic conditions, ETDRS charts offer repeatable best-corrected monocular VA measurements. The criterion for a significant change in logMAR VA was 1 line at distance and 1.5 lines at near.
Literature
1.
Raasch TW, Bailey IL, Bullimore MA (1998) Repeatability of visual acuity measurement. Optom Vis Sci 75(5):342–348CrossRefPubMed
2.
Petzold A, Plant GT (2006) Clinical disorders affecting mesopic vision. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 26:326–341CrossRefPubMed
3.
Dhamdhere K, Schneck M, Bearse MJ, Lam W, Barez S, Adams A (2014) Assessment of macular function using the SKILL card in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 55:3368–3374CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
4.
Heckenlively J (1988) Retinitis pigmentosa. JB Lippincott Co, Philadelphia
5.
Morimura H, Berson E, Dryja T (1999) Recessive mutations in the RLBP1 gene encoding cellular retinaldehyde-binding protein in a form of retinitis punctata albescens. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 40:1000–1004PubMed
6.
Nakamura M, Lin J, Ito Y, Miyake Y (2005) Novel mutation in RLBP1 gene in a Japanese patient with retinitis punctata albescens. Am J Ophthalmol 139:1133–1135CrossRefPubMed
7.
Fujita K, Shinoda K, Matsumoto CS, Imamura Y, Mizutani Y, Tanaka E, Mizota A, Oda K, Yuzawa M (2013) Low luminance visual acuity in patients with central serous chorioretinopathy. Clin Exp Optom 96(1):100–105CrossRefPubMed
8.
Keltner J, Thirkill C, Yip P (2001) Clinical and immunologic characteristics of melanoma-associated retinopathy syndrome: eleven new cases and a review of 51 previously published cases. J Neuroophthalmol 21:173–187CrossRefPubMed
9.
Puell MC, Barrio AR, Palomo-Alvarez C, Gómez-Sanz FJ, Clement-Corral A, Pérez-Carrasco MJ (2012) Impaired mesopic visual acuity in eyes with early age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 53:7310–7314CrossRefPubMed
10.
Sunness JS, Rubin GS, Broman A, Applegate CA, Bressler NM, Hawkins BS (2014) Low luminance visual dysfunction as a predictor of subsequent visual acuity loss from geographic atrophy in age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 115(9):1480–1488CrossRef
11.
Hess R, Woo G (1978) Vision through cataracts. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 17(5):428–435PubMed
12.
Hess RF, Carney LG (1979) Vision through an abnormal cornea: a pilot study of the relationship between visual loss from corneal distortion, corneal edema, keratoconus, and some allied corneal pathology. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 18(5):476–483PubMed
13.
Tang W, Heng WJ, Lee HM, Fam HB (2006) Efficacy of measuring visual performance of LASIK patients under photopic and mesopic conditions. Ann Acad Med Singap 35:541–546PubMed
14.
Lempert P, Hopcroft M, Lempert Y (1987) Evaluation of posterior subcapsular cataracts. With spatial contrast acuity. Ophthalmology 2:14–18CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zadnik K, Mannis MJ, Johnson CA, Rich D (1987) Rapid contrast sensitivity assessment in keratoconus. Am J Optom Physiol Optic 64(9):693–697CrossRef
16.
Applegate RA, Marsack JD, Thibos LN (2006) Metrics of retinal image quality predict visual performance in eyes with 20/17 or better visual acuity. Optom Vis Sci 83:635–640CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
17.
Luckiesh M (1944) Test charts representing a variety of visual tasks. Am J Ophthalmol 27:270–275CrossRef
18.
Plainis S, Murray I, Charman W (2005) The role of retinal adaptation in night driving. Optom Vis Sci 82:682–688CrossRefPubMed
19.
Bailey IL, Lovie JE (1976) New design principles for visual acuity letter charts. Am J Optom Physiol Optic 53(11):740–745CrossRef
20.
Lovie-Kitchin JE (1988) Validity and reliability of visual acuity measurements. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 8:363–370CrossRefPubMed
21.
Ferris FL 3rd, Bailey I (1996) Standardizing the measurement of visual acuity for clinical research studies: guidelines from the eye care technology forum. Ophthalmology 103(1):181–182CrossRefPubMed
22.
Klein R, Klein BE, Moss SE, DeMets D (1983) Inter-observer variation in refraction and visual acuity measurement using a standardized protocol. Ophthalmology 90(11):1357–1359CrossRefPubMed
23.
Camparini M, Cassinari P, Ferrigno L, Macaluso C (2001) ETDRS-fast: implementing psychophysical adaptive methods to standardized visual acuity measurement with ETDRS charts. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 42(6):1226–1231PubMed
24.
Elliott DB, Sheridan M (1988) The use of accurate visual acuity measurements in clinical anti-cataract formulation trials. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 8:397–401CrossRefPubMed
25.
Lovie-Kitchin JE, Brown B (2000) Repeatability and intercorrelations of standard vision tests as a function of age. Optom Vis Sci 77(8):412–420CrossRefPubMed
26.
Reeves BC, Wood JM, Hill AR AR (1993) Reliability of high- and low-contrast letter charts. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 13(1):17–26CrossRefPubMed
27.
Ferris FLR, Kassoff A, Bresnick GH, Bailey I (1982) New visual acuity charts for clinical research. Am J Ophthalmol 94:91–96CrossRefPubMed
28.
Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1(8476):307–310CrossRefPubMed
29.
Haegerstrom-Portnoy G, Brabyn J, Schneck ME, Jampolsky A (1997) The SKILL card. An acuity test of reduced luminance and contrast. Smith–Kettlewell Institute Low Luminance. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 38(1):207–218PubMed
30.
Pesudovs K, Marsack JD, Donnelly WJ 3rd, Thibos LN, Applegate RA (2004) Measuring visual acuity-mesopic or photopic conditions, and high or low contrast letters? J Refract Surg 20(5):S508–S514PubMed
31.
Lam AK, Tong C, Tse J, Yu M (2008) Repeatability of near visual acuity measurement at high and low contrast. Clin Exp Optom 91(5):447–452CrossRefPubMed
32.
Siderov J, Tiu AL (1999) Variability of measurements of visual acuity in a large eye clinic. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 77(6):673–676CrossRefPubMed
33.
Cho P, Woo GC (2004) Repeatability of the watterloo four-contrast LogMAR visual acuity chart and near vision test card on a group of normal young adults. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 24:427–435CrossRefPubMed
34.
Elliott D, Bullimore MA (1993) Assessing the reliability, discriminative ability, and validity of disability glare tests. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 34:108–119PubMed
Metadata
Title
Repeatability of mesopic visual acuity measurements using high- and low-contrast ETDRS letter charts
Authors
Ana Barrio
Beatriz Antona
María C. Puell
Publication date
01-05-2015
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology / Issue 5/2015
Print ISSN: 0721-832X
Electronic ISSN: 1435-702X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-014-2876-z

Other articles of this Issue 5/2015

Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 5/2015 Go to the issue

Retinal Disorders

ILM peeling technique influences the degree of a dissociated optic nerve fibre layer appearance after macular hole surgery

Glaucoma

Anatomical effects of clear lens extraction by phacoemulsification versus trabeculectomy on anterior chamber drainage angle in primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG) patients

Cornea

Cocaine snorting may induce ocular surface damage through corneal sensitivity impairment

Glaucoma

Exit strategies in canaloplasty: intraoperative conversion into 180-degree trabeculotomy or 360-degree trabeculotomy in cases of unsuccessful catheterisation of Schlemm’s canal: influence of degree of canal cleavage

Cataract

Influence of anterior chamber depth, anterior chamber volume, axial length, and lens density on postoperative endothelial cell loss

Cataract

Cataract surgery in infants with microphthalmos