Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

PURPOSE: To compare visual acuity (VA) assessed in healthy eyes and eyes with diabetic retinopathy (DR) using three different logMAR charts: the Sloan letter European-wide chart, the tumbling E chart, and the Landolt C chart. METHODS: Measurements on one eye of 40 volunteers (aged 29 ± 4 years) without visual impairment and 31 DR patients (aged 70 ± 9 years) with mild/moderate visual impairment were included. Visual acuity was assessed, with habitual refractive correction, using each of the three charts. Bland-Altman charts were constructed, and 95% limits of agreement were calculated to measure agreement. RESULTS: Mean VA in the group of young adults was -0.05 ± 0.10 (Sloan letter), -0.02 ± 0.13 (tumbling E), and 0.00 ± 0.12 (Landolt C) logMAR. Average VA estimates differed to a statistically significant extent between all charts. Mean VA in the DR group was 0.46 ± 0.25 (Sloan letter), 0.48 ± 0.26 (tumbling E), and 0.59 ± 0.28 (Landolt C). A statistically significant difference was observed for average Sloan letter versus Landolt C (p < 0.001) and tumbling E versus Landolt C (p < 0.001) acuities. Moreover, in healthy eyes, a moderate correlation (r = -0.38, p = 0.015) was found between the discrepancy in Sloan letter and Landolt C acuity and the mean VA estimate. The 95% limits of agreement were wide (more than approximately 0.2 logMAR for each comparison) and wider in the DR group chart comparisons than in healthy eyes. CONCLUSIONS: Landolt C charts resulted in worse VA estimates compared with letter and tumbling E charts in both young adults and visually impaired subjects with DR. These differences seem more pronounced in DR patients who exhibit worse VAs. The specific study population must be considered in comparing outcomes from different clinical practices. Copyright © 2013 American Academy of Optometry.

Original publication

DOI

10.1097/OPX.0b013e31827ce251

Type

Journal article

Journal

Optometry and Vision Science

Publication Date

01/02/2013

Volume

90

Pages

174 - 178