Comparison of best corrected visual acuity estimates between a custom-made digital chart and the ETDRS chart.

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Upsala journal of medical sciences Pub Date : 2026-02-17 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.48101/ujms.v131.13537
Zhaohua Yu
{"title":"Comparison of best corrected visual acuity estimates between a custom-made digital chart and the ETDRS chart.","authors":"Zhaohua Yu","doi":"10.48101/ujms.v131.13537","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) measurements obtained using a digital visual acuity chart with those from the gold-standard Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart and to assess differences in measurement variability and examination time.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Altogether 42 subjects (≥ 55 years) were examined using both charts on two separate occasions. BCVA was recorded in logMAR. Examination time was recorded. Subjects were stratified into four visual acuity classes. A nested analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze systematic differences and variance components.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A statistically significant difference in BCVA between the charts was found, but the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean difference (Digital - ETDRS: -0.03 ± 0.04 logMAR) was below the 0.1 logMAR resolution threshold. No significant interaction was observed between chart type and acuity class. The digital chart significantly reduced examination time by an average of 50 sec (95% CI: ±21). Variance was highest between testing occasions compared with that between-subject and for interaction between chart type and subjects.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The digital chart provides clinically equivalent BCVA estimates compared to the ETDRS chart, with shorter examination time. Its use in routine clinical settings is supported.</p>","PeriodicalId":23458,"journal":{"name":"Upsala journal of medical sciences","volume":"131 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12954571/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Upsala journal of medical sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.48101/ujms.v131.13537","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To compare best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) measurements obtained using a digital visual acuity chart with those from the gold-standard Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart and to assess differences in measurement variability and examination time.

Methods: Altogether 42 subjects (≥ 55 years) were examined using both charts on two separate occasions. BCVA was recorded in logMAR. Examination time was recorded. Subjects were stratified into four visual acuity classes. A nested analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze systematic differences and variance components.

Results: A statistically significant difference in BCVA between the charts was found, but the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean difference (Digital - ETDRS: -0.03 ± 0.04 logMAR) was below the 0.1 logMAR resolution threshold. No significant interaction was observed between chart type and acuity class. The digital chart significantly reduced examination time by an average of 50 sec (95% CI: ±21). Variance was highest between testing occasions compared with that between-subject and for interaction between chart type and subjects.

Conclusions: The digital chart provides clinically equivalent BCVA estimates compared to the ETDRS chart, with shorter examination time. Its use in routine clinical settings is supported.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

定制数字视力表与ETDRS视力表之间最佳矫正视力估计值的比较。
目的:比较使用数字视力表获得的最佳矫正视力(BCVA)测量值与金标准早期治疗糖尿病视网膜病变研究(ETDRS)图表的测量值,并评估测量变异性和检查时间的差异。方法:共42名年龄≥55岁的受试者在两个不同的场合使用两种图表进行检查。用logMAR记录BCVA。记录考试时间。受试者被分为四个视敏度等级。采用嵌套方差分析(ANOVA)分析系统差异和方差成分。结果:两组间的BCVA差异有统计学意义,但平均差异的95%置信区间(CI) (Digital - ETDRS: -0.03±0.04 logMAR)低于0.1 logMAR分辨率阈值。图表类型与锐度等级之间无显著交互作用。数字图表显著减少检查时间平均50秒(95% CI:±21)。测试场合之间的方差与受试者之间的方差以及图表类型与受试者之间的交互作用的方差最大。结论:与ETDRS图相比,数字图提供了临床等效的BCVA估计值,检查时间更短。支持在常规临床环境中使用它。
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
Upsala journal of medical sciences
Upsala journal of medical sciences 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences is published for the Upsala Medical Society. It has been published since 1865 and is one of the oldest medical journals in Sweden. The journal publishes clinical and experimental original works in the medical field. Although focusing on regional issues, the journal always welcomes contributions from outside Sweden. Specially extended issues are published occasionally, dealing with special topics, congress proceedings and academic dissertations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书