TY - JOUR
T1 - A computerized method of visual acuity testing
T2 - Adaptation of the early treatment of diabetic retinopathy study testing protocol
AU - Beck, Roy W.
AU - Moke, Pamela S.
AU - Turpin, Andrew H.
AU - Ferris, Frederick L.
AU - SanGiovanni, John Paul
AU - Johnson, Chris A.
AU - Birch, Eileen E.
AU - Chandler, Danielle L.
AU - Cox, Terry A.
AU - Blair, R. Clifford
AU - Kraker, Raymond T.
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was supported by the National Eye Institute grant #EY13095.
PY - 2003/2/1
Y1 - 2003/2/1
N2 - PURPOSE: To develop a computerized method of visual acuity testing for clinical research as an alternative to the standard Early Treatment for Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) testing protocol, and to evaluate its test-retest reliability and concordance with standard ETDRS testing. DESIGN: Test-retest reliability study. METHODS: Multicenter setting of a study population of 265 patients at three clinical sites. Visual acuity was measured with both the electronic visual acuity testing algorithm (E-ETDRS) and standard ETDRS protocol (S-ETDRS) twice on one eye of each patient. E-ETDRS testing was conducted using the electronic visual acuity tester (EVA), which utilizes a programmed Palm (Palm, Inc, Santa Clara, California, USA) hand-held device communicating with a personal computer and 17-inch monitor at a test distance of 3 meters. RESULTS: For the E-ETDRS protocol, test-retest reliability was high (r = 0.99; with 89% and 98% of retests within 0.1 logMAR and 0.2 logMAR of initial tests, respectively) and comparable with that of S-ETDRS testing (r = 0.99; with 87% and 98% of retests within 0.1 logMAR and 0.2 logMAR of initial test, respectively). The E-ETDRS and S-ETDRS scores were highly correlated (r = 0.96 for initial tests and r = 0.97 for repeat tests). Based on estimates of 95% confidence intervals, a change in visual acuity of 0.2 logMAR (10 letters) from a baseline level is unlikely to be related to measurement variability using either the E-ETDRS or the S-ETDRS visual acuity testing protocol. CONCLUSIONS: The E-ETDRS protocol has high test-retest reliability and good concordance with S-ETDRS testing. The computerized method has advantages over the S-ETDRS testing in electronically capturing the data for each tested letter, requiring only a single distance for testing from 20/12 to 20/800, potentially reducing testing time, and potentially decreasing technician-related bias.
AB - PURPOSE: To develop a computerized method of visual acuity testing for clinical research as an alternative to the standard Early Treatment for Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) testing protocol, and to evaluate its test-retest reliability and concordance with standard ETDRS testing. DESIGN: Test-retest reliability study. METHODS: Multicenter setting of a study population of 265 patients at three clinical sites. Visual acuity was measured with both the electronic visual acuity testing algorithm (E-ETDRS) and standard ETDRS protocol (S-ETDRS) twice on one eye of each patient. E-ETDRS testing was conducted using the electronic visual acuity tester (EVA), which utilizes a programmed Palm (Palm, Inc, Santa Clara, California, USA) hand-held device communicating with a personal computer and 17-inch monitor at a test distance of 3 meters. RESULTS: For the E-ETDRS protocol, test-retest reliability was high (r = 0.99; with 89% and 98% of retests within 0.1 logMAR and 0.2 logMAR of initial tests, respectively) and comparable with that of S-ETDRS testing (r = 0.99; with 87% and 98% of retests within 0.1 logMAR and 0.2 logMAR of initial test, respectively). The E-ETDRS and S-ETDRS scores were highly correlated (r = 0.96 for initial tests and r = 0.97 for repeat tests). Based on estimates of 95% confidence intervals, a change in visual acuity of 0.2 logMAR (10 letters) from a baseline level is unlikely to be related to measurement variability using either the E-ETDRS or the S-ETDRS visual acuity testing protocol. CONCLUSIONS: The E-ETDRS protocol has high test-retest reliability and good concordance with S-ETDRS testing. The computerized method has advantages over the S-ETDRS testing in electronically capturing the data for each tested letter, requiring only a single distance for testing from 20/12 to 20/800, potentially reducing testing time, and potentially decreasing technician-related bias.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0037307829&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0037307829&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/S0002-9394(02)01825-1
DO - 10.1016/S0002-9394(02)01825-1
M3 - Article
C2 - 12566024
AN - SCOPUS:0037307829
SN - 0002-9394
VL - 135
SP - 194
EP - 205
JO - American Journal of Ophthalmology
JF - American Journal of Ophthalmology
IS - 2
ER -