Validation of an Automated Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Low-contrast Letter Acuity Test.
Journal
Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry
ISSN: 1538-9235
Titre abrégé: Optom Vis Sci
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8904931
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2020
05 2020
Historique:
entrez:
16
5
2020
pubmed:
16
5
2020
medline:
10
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Automated low-contrast letter acuity (LCLA) has several advantages: consistent luminance, reduced chance of individuals memorizing test letters, and convenient and accurate visual acuity reporting functions. Although automated LCLA might report slightly worse acuity than Sloan LCLA chart, considering its advantages, it may be a viable alternative to Sloan LCLA chart in clinical practice and research. The purpose of this study was to determine the repeatability of an automated LCLA measurement and its agreement with the Sloan LCLA chart test in normal participants and reduced-vision participants. Adult participants (n = 49) were measured with both automated Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study and Sloan LCLA tests, including normal and reduced-vision groups. Low-contrast letter acuity at two contrast levels (2.5 and 10%) was measured at 3 m in a random sequence with both LCLA tests. To test repeatability, participants were retested 1 week later. Repeatability of the two tests between two visits and agreement between automated and Sloan LCLA tests were evaluated using 95% limits of agreement. In terms of the 95% limits of agreement, the repeatability of both tests was as follows: automated LCLA at 2.5%, ±0.26; automated LCLA at 10%, ±0.22; Sloan LCLA at 2.5%, ±0.23, and Sloan LCLA at 10%, ±0.16. The agreement of the two tests was as follows: ±0.19 at 2.5% and ±0.24 at 10%. The automated LCLA at 2.5 and 10% levels was generally reported one-half to one logMAR line lower than Sloan LCLA (mean differences, -0.04 at 2.5% and -0.13 at 10%; paired t test, P < .05). The automated LCLA test shows fairly good test-retest repeatability at both 2.5 and 10% contrast levels. The agreement between the automated and the Sloan low-contrast letter acuity tests was comparable with test-retest agreement. Although the automated LCLA test reports slightly worse acuity than the Sloan LCLA test, it could be an appropriate alternative to the Sloan LCLA test.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32413009
doi: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000001506
pii: 00006324-202005000-00009
pmc: PMC7370921
mid: NIHMS1578839
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Validation Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
370-376Subventions
Organisme : NEI NIH HHS
ID : R21 EY026664
Pays : United States
Références
Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10
pubmed: 2868172
Mult Scler. 2017 Apr;23(5):734-747
pubmed: 28206829
J Vis. 2012 Sep 14;12(10):11
pubmed: 22984224
Optom Vis Sci. 2005 Nov;82(11):970-5
pubmed: 16317373
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000 Apr;41(5):1017-21
pubmed: 10752936
Clin Exp Optom. 2003 May;86(3):152-6
pubmed: 12767249
Mult Scler. 2000 Jun;6(3):163-71
pubmed: 10871827
Optom Vis Sci. 2014 Mar;91(3):291-6
pubmed: 24413274
Am J Ophthalmol. 2011 Jul;152(1):133-40
pubmed: 21570055
Vision Res. 1998 Jun;38(13):2047-52
pubmed: 9797950
J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 1990 Jan-Feb;27(1):28-31
pubmed: 2324914
J Vis. 2013 Nov 26;13(13):28
pubmed: 24281244
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1988;8(4):397-401
pubmed: 3253632
Clin Exp Optom. 2019 Jan;102(1):57-62
pubmed: 30054940
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1987;7(4):441-6
pubmed: 3502657
Optom Vis Sci. 1996 Jan;73(1):49-53
pubmed: 8867682
Optom Vis Sci. 2006 Sep;83(9):635-40
pubmed: 16971841