Shortening the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study visual acuity test utilizing a novel computer software: reproducibility in control and patient eyes

Amir D N Cohen, Michael Mimouni, Ran El-Yaniv, Eytan Z Blumenthal, Amir D N Cohen, Michael Mimouni, Ran El-Yaniv, Eytan Z Blumenthal

Abstract

Purpose: To describe and compare a method of computerized visual acuity (VA) testing software to the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart.

Methods: Setting: Single tertiary institution.

Study population: Prospective study including right eyes of volunteers (N = 109) and patients (N = 126).

Intervention: Subjects were tested in a random order twice with the ETDRS chart and twice with the VA software. For ETDRS, we calculated the final VA separately for each run, using four different test termination criteria (1-miss in a row, 2-miss in a row, 50% miss and per-letter). For software testing, we calculated final VA with a variety of number of letters presented.

Main outcome measures: The main outcome measures were reproducibility and number of letters required to exceed ETDRS reproducibility.

Results: For ETDRS, the average number of letters presented was 55.1 ± 9, 54.3 ± 10, 53.1 ± 10 and 70 for the 1-miss, 2-miss, 50% termination and per-letter criterion. The test-retest variability (TRV) of ETDRS was 0.29, 0.42, 0.17 and 0.141 for the 1-miss in a row, 2-miss in a row, 50% and per-letter termination criteria. For the software VA test, TRV was 0.202, 0.138 and 0.112 after presenting 6, 11 and 20 letters. The reproducibility of the software was equal to the ETDRS at 11 letters and thereafter surpassed. Similar results were achieved in the patient group.

Conclusions: This study demonstrates that by utilizing a VA testing software, based on advanced threshold testing algorithms we were able to duplicate, and surpass, the reproducibility of the ETDRS chart while presenting much fewer letters.

Keywords: Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study; reproducibility; software; variance; visual acuity.

© 2021 Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

References

    1. Anstice NS, Jacobs RJ, Simkin SK, Thomson M, Thompson B & Collins AV. (2017): Do picture-based charts overestimate visual acuity? Comparison of Kay Pictures, Lea Symbols, HOTV and Keeler logMAR charts with Sloan letters in adults and children. PLoS One 12: e0170839.
    1. Arditi A & Cagenello R (1993): On the statistical reliability of letter-chart visual acuity measurements. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 34: 120-129.
    1. Bailey IL, Bullimore MA, Raasch TW & Taylor HR (1991): Clinical grading and the effects of scaling. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 32: 422-432.
    1. Beck RW, Moke PS, Turpin AH et al. (2003): A computerized method of visual acuity testing: adaptation of the early treatment of diabetic retinopathy study testing protocol. Am J Ophthalmol 135: 194-205.
    1. Brown B & Lovie-Kitchin J (1993): Repeated visual acuity measurement: establishing the patient’s own criterion for change. Optom Vis Sci 70: 45-53.
    1. Camparini M, Cassinari P, Ferrigno L & Macaluso C (2001): ETDRS-fast: implementing psychophysical adaptive methods to standardized visual acuity measurement with ETDRS charts. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 42: 1226-1231.
    1. Carkeet A (2001): Modeling logMAR visual acuity scores: Effects of termination rules and alternative forced-choice options. Optom Vis Sci 78: 529-538.
    1. Cover TM & Thomas JA (2006): Elements of Information Theory, 2nd Edn. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
    1. Engin Ö, Despriet DDG, van der Meulen-Schot HM et al. (2014): Comparison of optotypes of Amsterdam Picture Chart with those of Tumbling-E, LEA Symbols, ETDRS, and Landolt-C in non-amblyopic and amblyopic patients. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 252: 2013-2020.
    1. Entezari M, Rajavi Z, Sedighi N, Daftarian N & Sanagoo M (2007): High-dose intravenous methylprednisolone in recent traumatic optic neuropathy; a randomized double-masked placebo-controlled clinical trial. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 245: 1267-1271.
    1. Facchin A, Maffioletti S, Martelli M & Daini R (2019): Different trajectories in the development of visual acuity with different levels of crowding: The Milan Eye Chart (MEC). Vision Res 156: 10-16.
    1. Falkenstein IA, Cochran DE, Azen SP, Dustin L, Tammewar AM, Kozak I & Freeman WR (2008): Comparison of visual acuity in macular degeneration patients measured with snellen and Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study charts. Ophthalmology 115: 319-323.
    1. Holmes JM, Manh VM, Lazar EL et al. (2016): Effect of a binocular iPad game vs part-time patching in children aged 5 to 12 years with amblyopia. JAMA Ophthalmol 134: 1391.
    1. Jedynak B, Frazier PI & Sznitman R (2012): Twenty questions with noise: Bayes optimal policies for entropy loss. J Appl Probab 49: 114-136.
    1. Koehrer P, Bron AM, Chiquet C et al. (2015): Early versus delayed intravitreal betamethasone as an adjuvant in the treatment of presumed postoperative endophthalmitis: a randomised trial. Br J Ophthalmol 100: 1076-1080.
    1. Laidlaw DAH, 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: 1232-1234.
    1. Laidlaw DAH, Tailor V, Shah N, Atamian S & Harcourt C (2008): Validation of a computerised logMAR visual acuity measurement system (COMPlog): comparison with ETDRS and the electronic ETDRS testing algorithm in adults and amblyopic children. Br J Ophthalmol 92: 241-244.
    1. Lalor SJH, Formankiewicz MA & Waugh SJ (2016): Crowding and visual acuity measured in adults using paediatric test letters, pictures and symbols. Vision Res 121: 31-38.
    1. Lovie-Kitchin JE (2015): Is it time to confine Snellen charts to the annals of history? Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 35: 631-636.
    1. Mimouni M, Shamir RR, Cohen AD, El-Yaniv R, Cohen MJ, Joskowicz L & Blumenthal EZ (2019): A comparison of different scoring terminations rules for visual acuity testing: from a computer simulation to a clinical study. Curr Eye Res 44: 790-795.
    1. Raasch TW, Bailey IL & Bullimore MA (1998): Repeatability of visual acuity measurement. Optom Vis Sci 75: 342-348.
    1. Ricci F, Cedrone C & Cerulli L (1998): Standardized measurement of visual acuity. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 5: 41-53.
    1. Richard G, Monés J, Wolf S et al. (2015): Scheduled versus Pro Re Nata dosing in the VIEW trials. Ophthalmology 122: 2497-2503.
    1. Rosser DA, Cousens SN, Murdoch IE, Fitzke FW & Laidlaw DAH (2003): How sensitive to clinical change are ETDRS logMAR visual acuity measurements? Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44: 3278-3281.
    1. Rosser DA, Laidlaw DAH & Murdoch IE (2001): The development of a ‘reduced logMAR’ visual acuity chart for use in routine clinical practice. Br J Ophthalmol 85: 432-436.
    1. Shah N, Laidlaw DAH, 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 Opthalmol Vis Sci 52: 9397.
    1. Shah S, Peris-Martinez C, Reinhard T & Vinciguerra P (2015): Visual outcomes after cataract surgery: multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg 31: 658-666.
    1. 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: 411-417.
    1. Wells JA, Glassman AR, Ayala AR et al. (2016): Aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema two-year results from a comparative effectiveness randomized clinical trial. Ophthalmology 123: 1351-1359.

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅