Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 5/2016

01-05-2016 | Miscellaneous

The influence of varying the number of characters per row on the accuracy and reproducibility of the ETDRS visual acuity chart

Authors: Reuben R. Shamir, Yael G. Friedman, Leo Joskowicz, Michael Mimouni, Eytan Z. Blumenthal

Published in: Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology | Issue 5/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

As part of an effort to improve upon the Snellen chart, we provide a standardized version of the ETDRS chart utilizing five characters in each row. The choice of five characters contradicts the recommended ten characters per row determined by the NAS-NRC, a committee established to provide guidelines for testing visual acuity. We set out to quantify the influence of varying the number of characters per line on the ETDRS chart with respect to the accuracy and reproducibility of visual acuity measurement.

Methods

Eleven different ETDRS charts were created, each with a different number of characters appearing in each row. A computer simulation was programmed to run 10,000 virtual patients, each with a unique visual acuity, false-positive and false-negative error value.

Results

Accuracy and reproducibility were found to roughly correlate with the number of characters present in each row, such that charts with 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 characters per row provided accuracy of 0.164, 0.094, 0.078, 0.073, 0.071, and 0.070 logMAR, respectively. A non-linear relationship was observed, with little improvement found beyond seven characters per row. In addition, charts with an even number of characters per row provided higher accuracy than their greater-number odd counterparts. In certain instances, accuracy and reproducibility were not well correlated.

Conclusions

Increasing the number of characters per row in the ETDRS chart provides a trade-off between accuracy and test duration. An optimized chart layout would take these findings into account, allowing for the use of different chart layouts for clinical versus research settings.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Ferris FL 3rd, Kassoff A, Bresnick GH, Bailey I (1982) New visual acuity charts for clinical research. Am J Ophthalmol 94:91–96CrossRefPubMed Ferris FL 3rd, Kassoff A, Bresnick GH, Bailey I (1982) New visual acuity charts for clinical research. Am J Ophthalmol 94:91–96CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Bailey IL, Lovie JE (1976) New design principles for visual acuity letter charts. Am J Optom Physiol Optic 53:740–745CrossRef Bailey IL, Lovie JE (1976) New design principles for visual acuity letter charts. Am J Optom Physiol Optic 53:740–745CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Committee on vision (1980) Recommended stardard procedures for the clinical measurement and specification of visual acuity. Report of working group 39. Assembly of Behavioral and Social Sciences, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. Adv Ophthalmol 41: 103-148 Committee on vision (1980) Recommended stardard procedures for the clinical measurement and specification of visual acuity. Report of working group 39. Assembly of Behavioral and Social Sciences, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. Adv Ophthalmol 41: 103-148
4.
go back to reference Barrio A, Antona B, Puell MC (2015) Repeatability of mesopic visual acuity measurements using high- and low-contrast ETDRS letter charts. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 253:791–795CrossRefPubMed Barrio A, Antona B, Puell MC (2015) Repeatability of mesopic visual acuity measurements using high- and low-contrast ETDRS letter charts. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 253:791–795CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Koenig S, Tonagel F, Schiefer U, Bach M, Heinrich SP (2014) Assessing visual acuity across five disease types: ETDRS charts are faster with clinical outcome comparable to Landolt Cs. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 252:1093–1099CrossRefPubMed Koenig S, Tonagel F, Schiefer U, Bach M, Heinrich SP (2014) Assessing visual acuity across five disease types: ETDRS charts are faster with clinical outcome comparable to Landolt Cs. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 252:1093–1099CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Shah N, Laidlaw DA, Shah SP, Sivasubramaniam S, Bunce C, Cousens S (2011) Computerized repeating and averaging improve the test–retest variability of ETDRS visual acuity measurements: implications for sensitivity and specificity. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 52:9397–9402CrossRefPubMed Shah N, Laidlaw DA, Shah SP, Sivasubramaniam S, Bunce C, Cousens S (2011) Computerized repeating and averaging improve the test–retest variability of ETDRS visual acuity measurements: implications for sensitivity and specificity. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 52:9397–9402CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference 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 (Lond) 24:673–677CrossRef 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 (Lond) 24:673–677CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Turpin A, McKendrick AM, Johnson CA, Vingrys AJ (2003) Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from full threshold, ZEST, and SITA-like strategies, as determined by computer simulation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44:4787–4795CrossRefPubMed Turpin A, McKendrick AM, Johnson CA, Vingrys AJ (2003) Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from full threshold, ZEST, and SITA-like strategies, as determined by computer simulation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44:4787–4795CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Vesti E, Spry PG, Chauhan BC, Johnson CA (2002) Sensitivity differences between real-patient and computer-stimulated visual fields. J Glaucoma 11:35–45CrossRefPubMed Vesti E, Spry PG, Chauhan BC, Johnson CA (2002) Sensitivity differences between real-patient and computer-stimulated visual fields. J Glaucoma 11:35–45CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Turpin A, McKendrick AM, Johnson CA, Vingrys AJ (2002) Development of efficient threshold strategies for frequency doubling technology perimetry using computer simulation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 43:322–331PubMed Turpin A, McKendrick AM, Johnson CA, Vingrys AJ (2002) Development of efficient threshold strategies for frequency doubling technology perimetry using computer simulation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 43:322–331PubMed
12.
go back to reference Vesti E, Johnson CA, Chauhan BC (2003) Comparison of different methods for detecting glaucomatous visual field progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44:3873–3879CrossRefPubMed Vesti E, Johnson CA, Chauhan BC (2003) Comparison of different methods for detecting glaucomatous visual field progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44:3873–3879CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Gardiner SK, Crabb DP (2002) Examination of different pointwise linear regression methods for determining visual field progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 43:1400–1407PubMed Gardiner SK, Crabb DP (2002) Examination of different pointwise linear regression methods for determining visual field progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 43:1400–1407PubMed
14.
go back to reference McNaught AI, Crabb DP, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA (1995) Modelling series of visual fields to detect progression in normal-tension glaucoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 233:750–755CrossRefPubMed McNaught AI, Crabb DP, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA (1995) Modelling series of visual fields to detect progression in normal-tension glaucoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 233:750–755CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Anderson DR and Patella VM (1999). The basis of quantitative perimetry. Automated static perimetry. St. Louis, Mosby: 10-35. Anderson DR and Patella VM (1999). The basis of quantitative perimetry. Automated static perimetry. St. Louis, Mosby: 10-35.
16.
go back to reference 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 85:432–436CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral 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 85:432–436CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
go back to reference Vanden Bosch ME, Wall M (1997) Visual acuity scored by the letter-by-letter or probit methods has lower retest variability than the line assignment method. Eye (Lond) 11(Pt 3):411–417CrossRef Vanden Bosch ME, Wall M (1997) Visual acuity scored by the letter-by-letter or probit methods has lower retest variability than the line assignment method. Eye (Lond) 11(Pt 3):411–417CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Dobson V, Clifford-Donaldson CE, Miller JM, Garvey KA, Harvey EM (2009) A comparison of Lea symbol vs ETDRS letter distance visual acuity in a population of young children with a high prevalence of astigmatism. J AAPOS 13:253–257CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Dobson V, Clifford-Donaldson CE, Miller JM, Garvey KA, Harvey EM (2009) A comparison of Lea symbol vs ETDRS letter distance visual acuity in a population of young children with a high prevalence of astigmatism. J AAPOS 13:253–257CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
go back to reference Kniestedt C, Stamper RL (2003) Visual acuity and its measurement. Ophthalmol Clin N Am 16:155–170, vCrossRef Kniestedt C, Stamper RL (2003) Visual acuity and its measurement. Ophthalmol Clin N Am 16:155–170, vCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Ricci F, Cedrone C, Cerulli L (1998) Standardized measurement of visual acuity. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 5:41–53CrossRefPubMed Ricci F, Cedrone C, Cerulli L (1998) Standardized measurement of visual acuity. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 5:41–53CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Vanden Bosch ME, Wall M (1997) Visual acuity scored by the letter-by-letter or probit methods has lower retest variability than the line assignment method. Eye 11(Pt 3):411–417CrossRefPubMed Vanden Bosch ME, Wall M (1997) Visual acuity scored by the letter-by-letter or probit methods has lower retest variability than the line assignment method. Eye 11(Pt 3):411–417CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference 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 44:3278–3281CrossRefPubMed 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 44:3278–3281CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Laidlaw DA, Abbott A, Rosser DA (2003) Development of a clinically feasible logMAR alternative to the Snellen chart: performance of the “compact reduced logMAR” visual acuity chart in amblyopic children. Br J Ophthalmol 87:1232–1234CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Laidlaw DA, Abbott A, Rosser DA (2003) Development of a clinically feasible logMAR alternative to the Snellen chart: performance of the “compact reduced logMAR” visual acuity chart in amblyopic children. Br J Ophthalmol 87:1232–1234CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
go back to reference Moke PS, Turpin AH, Beck RW, Holmes JM, Repka MX, Birch EE, Hertle RW, Kraker RT, Miller JM, Johnson CA (2001) Computerized method of visual acuity testing: adaptation of the amblyopia treatment study visual acuity testing protocol. Am J Ophthalmol 132:903–909CrossRefPubMed Moke PS, Turpin AH, Beck RW, Holmes JM, Repka MX, Birch EE, Hertle RW, Kraker RT, Miller JM, Johnson CA (2001) Computerized method of visual acuity testing: adaptation of the amblyopia treatment study visual acuity testing protocol. Am J Ophthalmol 132:903–909CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
The influence of varying the number of characters per row on the accuracy and reproducibility of the ETDRS visual acuity chart
Authors
Reuben R. Shamir
Yael G. Friedman
Leo Joskowicz
Michael Mimouni
Eytan Z. Blumenthal
Publication date
01-05-2016
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology / Issue 5/2016
Print ISSN: 0721-832X
Electronic ISSN: 1435-702X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-015-3252-3

Other articles of this Issue 5/2016

Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 5/2016 Go to the issue