Email this article ARE THERE TRUE REASONS TO CONSIDER ETDRS CHARTS AS A “GOLDEN STANDARD” FOR MEASURING VISUAL ACUITY?
- Authors: Rozhkova GI1
-
Affiliations:
- Institute for Information Transmission Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Kharkevich Institute)
- Issue: Vol 37, No 2 (2018)
- Pages: 120-124
- Section: Articles
- URL: https://journal-vniispk.ru/RMMArep/article/view/14208
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.17816/rmmar14208
- ID: 14208
Cite item
Full Text
Abstract
The charts having different design and containing various optotypes - geometrical forms, sinusoidal gratings letters, figures, simplified object images, textual fragments - are used traditionally in clinical practice for visual acuity assessment. Visual tasks are also various: detection, localization, recognition, reading. The visual acuity values obtained by means of each chart reflect inevitably not only the quality of the images created on the photoreceptor matrix, but also functioning of different brain path- ways tuned to the images of different types. The choice of the chart depends on the aim of measurement. Despite evident impossibility of creating a universal chart, the best in all respects, recently, there appeared a tendency to promote ETDRS charts with letters into clinical and educational practice as some “gold standard” for measuring visual acuity. However, objective optometric qualities of the ETDRS charts as the instruments for clinical examination - comfort of the procedure, accuracy of measurements, test-retest reliability - are not better than of many other charts and their usefulness is limited. In the present work, some shortages of the ETDRS charts are discussed and the necessity of employing different charts for screening, monitoring, diagnostics and expertise is outlined (2 figs, bibliography: 10 refs).
Full Text
##article.viewOnOriginalSite##About the authors
G I Rozhkova
Institute for Information Transmission Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Kharkevich Institute)Moscow, Russia
References
- Ferris F. L., Kassoff A., Bresnick G. H., Bailey I. New visual acuity charts for clinical research. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 1982; 94: 91-6.
- Рожкова Г. И. LogMAR для остроты зрения хуже, чем лошадиная сила для мощности электрической лампочки. Сенсорные системы. 2017; 31 (1): 31-43.
- Arditi A., Cagenello R. On the statistical reliability of letterchart visual acuity measurements. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 1993; 34 (1): 120-9.
- Plainis S., Tzatzala P., Orphanos Y., Tsilimbaris M. K. A modified ETDRS visual acuity chart for European-wide use. Optom. Vis. Sci. 2007; 84 (7): 647-53.
- Bourne R. R. A., Rosser D. A., Sukudom P., Dineen B., Laidlaw D. A. H., Johnston G. J., Murdoch I. E. Evaluating a new logMAR chart designed to improve visual acuity assessment in population-based surveys. Eye. 2003; 17: 754-8. doi: 10.1038/sj.eye.6700500
- Ruamviboonsuk P., Tiensuvan M., Kunawut C., Masayaanon P. Repeatability of an automated Landolt C test, compared with the early treatment diabetic retinopathy study (ETDRS) chart testing. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2003; 136 (4): 662-9. DOI: 10.1016S0002-9394-5
- Wittich W., Overbury O., Kapusta M. A., Watanabe D. H. Differences between recognition and resolution acuity in patients undergoing macular hole surgery. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2006; 47: 3690-4.
- Stiers P., Vanderkelen R., Vandenbussche E. Optotype and grating visual acuity in patients with ocular and cerebral visual impairment. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2004; 45: 4333-9.
- Коскин С. А. Система определения остроты зрения в целях врачебной экспертизы. Автореф. дис. … докт. мед. наук. СПб.; 2009. 48.
- Rozhkova G., Lebedev D., Gracheva M., Rychkova S. Optimal optotype structure for monitoring visual acuity. Proc. Latvian Acad. Sci. Section B. 2017; 71 (5-710): 20-30.
Supplementary files
