A Portable Visual Acuity Device Used in Diabetic Retinal Screening

Lori Ann F. Kehler; K. Bradley Kehler; Lawrence M. Merin; James C. Tsai

doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2006.09.053

A Portable Visual Acuity Device Used in Diabetic Retinal Screening

Lori Ann F. Kehler, K. Bradley Kehler, Lawrence M. Merin, James C. Tsai

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

Purpose: To correlate visual acuity measured with the Optec 800 to the gold-standard Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart. Design: Prospective, cross-sectional study. Methods: Forty patients of the Vanderbilt Eye Institute agreed to undergo visual acuity testing. Five patients were excluded because of enucleation or functional blindness of one or both eyes. Two patients were excluded because of poor cooperation during testing. Patients were randomized to one of the two methods and participated in visual acuity testing in a forced-choice manner. The sequence was repeated with the alternate instrument. A total-correct score was calculated for each data set. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in scores between the two methods (P₁ = .153, P₂ = .307.) Other factors such as gender, age, and instrument testing order did not affect performance. Age was inversely correlated with total correct score. Conclusions: In this small cohort, the Optec 800 (Chicago, Illinois, USA) and the ETDRS chart recorded similar visual acuity measurements.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	514-515.e1
Journal	American Journal of Ophthalmology
Volume	143
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2006.09.053
State	Published - Mar 2007
Externally published	Yes

Access to Document

10.1016/j.ajo.2006.09.053

Cite this

@article{a120eaf96c414cce88bf354f594a0a92,

title = "A Portable Visual Acuity Device Used in Diabetic Retinal Screening",

abstract = "Purpose: To correlate visual acuity measured with the Optec 800 to the gold-standard Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart. Design: Prospective, cross-sectional study. Methods: Forty patients of the Vanderbilt Eye Institute agreed to undergo visual acuity testing. Five patients were excluded because of enucleation or functional blindness of one or both eyes. Two patients were excluded because of poor cooperation during testing. Patients were randomized to one of the two methods and participated in visual acuity testing in a forced-choice manner. The sequence was repeated with the alternate instrument. A total-correct score was calculated for each data set. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in scores between the two methods (P1 = .153, P2 = .307.) Other factors such as gender, age, and instrument testing order did not affect performance. Age was inversely correlated with total correct score. Conclusions: In this small cohort, the Optec 800 (Chicago, Illinois, USA) and the ETDRS chart recorded similar visual acuity measurements.",

author = "Kehler, {Lori Ann F.} and Kehler, {K. Bradley} and Merin, {Lawrence M.} and Tsai, {James C.}",

note = "Funding Information: This study was supported by a challenge grant from Research to Prevent Blindness, Inc, New York, New York. The authors indicate no financial conflict of interest. Involved in the design of study (L.F.K., J.C.T.); conduct of study (L.F.K., K.B.K.); collection of the data (L.F.K., K.B.K.); management of the data (L.F.K.); analysis of the data (L.F.K., J.C.T.); interpretation of the data (L.F.K., K.B.K.); preparation of the manuscript (L.F.K., K.B.K.); review of the manuscript (L.F.K., K.B.K., L.M.M., J.C.T.); and approval of the manuscript (L.F.K, K.B.K., L.M.M., J.C.T.). ",

year = "2007",

month = mar,

doi = "10.1016/j.ajo.2006.09.053",

language = "English",

volume = "143",

pages = "514--515.e1",

journal = "American Journal of Ophthalmology",

issn = "0002-9394",

publisher = "Elsevier USA",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Portable Visual Acuity Device Used in Diabetic Retinal Screening

AU - Kehler, Lori Ann F.

AU - Kehler, K. Bradley

AU - Merin, Lawrence M.

AU - Tsai, James C.

N1 - Funding Information: This study was supported by a challenge grant from Research to Prevent Blindness, Inc, New York, New York. The authors indicate no financial conflict of interest. Involved in the design of study (L.F.K., J.C.T.); conduct of study (L.F.K., K.B.K.); collection of the data (L.F.K., K.B.K.); management of the data (L.F.K.); analysis of the data (L.F.K., J.C.T.); interpretation of the data (L.F.K., K.B.K.); preparation of the manuscript (L.F.K., K.B.K.); review of the manuscript (L.F.K., K.B.K., L.M.M., J.C.T.); and approval of the manuscript (L.F.K, K.B.K., L.M.M., J.C.T.).

PY - 2007/3

Y1 - 2007/3

N2 - Purpose: To correlate visual acuity measured with the Optec 800 to the gold-standard Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart. Design: Prospective, cross-sectional study. Methods: Forty patients of the Vanderbilt Eye Institute agreed to undergo visual acuity testing. Five patients were excluded because of enucleation or functional blindness of one or both eyes. Two patients were excluded because of poor cooperation during testing. Patients were randomized to one of the two methods and participated in visual acuity testing in a forced-choice manner. The sequence was repeated with the alternate instrument. A total-correct score was calculated for each data set. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in scores between the two methods (P1 = .153, P2 = .307.) Other factors such as gender, age, and instrument testing order did not affect performance. Age was inversely correlated with total correct score. Conclusions: In this small cohort, the Optec 800 (Chicago, Illinois, USA) and the ETDRS chart recorded similar visual acuity measurements.

AB - Purpose: To correlate visual acuity measured with the Optec 800 to the gold-standard Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart. Design: Prospective, cross-sectional study. Methods: Forty patients of the Vanderbilt Eye Institute agreed to undergo visual acuity testing. Five patients were excluded because of enucleation or functional blindness of one or both eyes. Two patients were excluded because of poor cooperation during testing. Patients were randomized to one of the two methods and participated in visual acuity testing in a forced-choice manner. The sequence was repeated with the alternate instrument. A total-correct score was calculated for each data set. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in scores between the two methods (P1 = .153, P2 = .307.) Other factors such as gender, age, and instrument testing order did not affect performance. Age was inversely correlated with total correct score. Conclusions: In this small cohort, the Optec 800 (Chicago, Illinois, USA) and the ETDRS chart recorded similar visual acuity measurements.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33847021862&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ajo.2006.09.053

DO - 10.1016/j.ajo.2006.09.053

M3 - Article

C2 - 17317400

AN - SCOPUS:33847021862

SN - 0002-9394

VL - 143

SP - 514-515.e1

JO - American Journal of Ophthalmology

JF - American Journal of Ophthalmology

IS - 3

ER -

A Portable Visual Acuity Device Used in Diabetic Retinal Screening

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this