A Comparative Validation Study of Near Visual Acuity Assessment Using Different Handheld Acuity Charts

IF 3.2 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY

Ophthalmology science Pub Date : 2025-04-08 DOI:10.1016/j.xops.2025.100790

David Ziyou Chen MBBS, FRCOphth , Yih-Chung Tham PhD , Liang Shen PhD , Soon-Phaik Chee MMed (Ophth), FRCOphth

{"title":"A Comparative Validation Study of Near Visual Acuity Assessment Using Different Handheld Acuity Charts","authors":"David Ziyou Chen MBBS, FRCOphth , Yih-Chung Tham PhD , Liang Shen PhD , Soon-Phaik Chee MMed (Ophth), FRCOphth","doi":"10.1016/j.xops.2025.100790","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To develop a conversion table and compare the cross-validity of 3 types of widely utilized near vision charts: the ETDRS near chart, the N-notation chart, and the Rosenbaum chart.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>A prospective, cross-sectional, comparative validation study.</div></div><div><h3>Participants</h3><div>Aged ≥40 years.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A conversion table for the 3 types of near charts was created using objective character sizing based on vertical height captured using a surgical microscope with a 10× magnification. Eligible presbyopic patients had their near vision tested sequentially with 3 near charts in a randomized order.</div></div><div><h3>Main Outcome Measures</h3><div>Pearson correlation coefficient (<em>r</em>) for the relationship among the near visual acuity charts. The consistency between the different charts was evaluated by Bland−Altman diagrams.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 204 participants (129 women, 63.2%) were recruited for the study (mean age, 58.9 ± 7.1 years). For correlation, <em>r</em> ranged from 0.596 to 0.836 (all <em>P</em> < 0.001). The Rosenbaum chart had the smallest range of difference against the ETDRS chart (standard deviation [SD] = 0.12), followed by the N-notation chart (SD = 0.15). Most of the converted logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) values from the N-notation and Rosenbaum charts were between 0.0 and 0.1 higher than the ETDRS logMAR equivalent (range: 0.07–0.11), with a tendency for both the N-notation and Rosenbaum charts to overestimate logMAR at more positive values.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>We have developed a conversion table for 3 types of commonly used near vision charts. When compared with the ETDRS near chart, the Rosenbaum chart had a smaller range of difference than the N-notation chart. Both the Rosenbaum and N-notation charts tended to underestimate near vision at worse vision.</div></div><div><h3>Financial Disclosure(s)</h3><div>The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74363,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmology science","volume":"5 5","pages":"Article 100790"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmology science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666914525000880","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To develop a conversion table and compare the cross-validity of 3 types of widely utilized near vision charts: the ETDRS near chart, the N-notation chart, and the Rosenbaum chart.

Design

A prospective, cross-sectional, comparative validation study.

Participants

Aged ≥40 years.

Methods

A conversion table for the 3 types of near charts was created using objective character sizing based on vertical height captured using a surgical microscope with a 10× magnification. Eligible presbyopic patients had their near vision tested sequentially with 3 near charts in a randomized order.

Main Outcome Measures

Pearson correlation coefficient (r) for the relationship among the near visual acuity charts. The consistency between the different charts was evaluated by Bland−Altman diagrams.

Results

A total of 204 participants (129 women, 63.2%) were recruited for the study (mean age, 58.9 ± 7.1 years). For correlation, r ranged from 0.596 to 0.836 (all P < 0.001). The Rosenbaum chart had the smallest range of difference against the ETDRS chart (standard deviation [SD] = 0.12), followed by the N-notation chart (SD = 0.15). Most of the converted logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) values from the N-notation and Rosenbaum charts were between 0.0 and 0.1 higher than the ETDRS logMAR equivalent (range: 0.07–0.11), with a tendency for both the N-notation and Rosenbaum charts to overestimate logMAR at more positive values.

Conclusions

We have developed a conversion table for 3 types of commonly used near vision charts. When compared with the ETDRS near chart, the Rosenbaum chart had a smaller range of difference than the N-notation chart. Both the Rosenbaum and N-notation charts tended to underestimate near vision at worse vision.

Financial Disclosure(s)

The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

查看原文本刊更多论文

不同手持式视力表对近视力评估的比较验证研究

目的编制ETDRS近视图、n -记数图和Rosenbaum近视图3种常用的近视图转换表，并对其交叉效度进行比较。设计一项前瞻性、横断面、比较验证的研究。参与者年龄≥40岁。方法利用10倍放大率的外科显微镜拍摄的垂直高度，以客观特征大小为基础，制作3种近图的转换表。符合条件的老花眼患者按随机顺序用3张近视图进行视力测试。主要观察指标近视力表间关系的相关系数(r)。采用Bland - Altman图评价不同图表之间的一致性。结果共纳入204例受试者（女性129例，占63.2%），平均年龄58.9±7.1岁。相关性r为0.596 ~ 0.836(均P <；0.001)。Rosenbaum图与ETDRS图的差异最小（标准差[SD] = 0.12），其次是n符号图（SD = 0.15）。n -表示法和Rosenbaum图的最小分辨角（logMAR）值的转换对数大多比ETDRS的logMAR值高0.0 ~ 0.1（范围0.07 ~ 0.11），且n -表示法和Rosenbaum图都有高估logMAR值的趋势。结论建立了3种常用近视图的换算表。与ETDRS近图相比，Rosenbaum图的差异范围小于n符号图。罗森鲍姆图和n符号图都倾向于低估视力较差的近视力。财务披露作者在本文中讨论的任何材料中没有专有或商业利益。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊