Advertisement

Use of log-scaled crowded visual acuity charts in clinical studies regarding amblyopia

  • Asimina MataftsiEmail author
  • Nikolaos Kappos
  • Paraskevi Riga
  • Stamatia Kokkali
  • Paraskevi Malamaki
  • Periklis Brazitikos
  • Anna-Bettina Haidich
Pediatrics
First Online:
  • 28 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Log-scaled crowded charts using standardized testing protocol are essential for precise and reproducible visual acuity (VA) testing regarding amblyopia. Despite common acceptance of these standards, current VA testing clinical practice shows considerable diversity. The purpose of this retrospective literature review was to investigate the methodology of VA measurement and reporting in pediatric ophthalmology literature regarding amblyopia.

Methods

We searched PubMed for clinical trials regarding amblyopia, published from January 1994 to July 2016. Primary outcomes included VA measurement methodology, namely use of (a) log-scaled chart, (b) crowded chart, and (c) specified testing protocol. The study design, publication year, and the journal’s impact factor were analyzed in relation to the primary outcomes.

Results

Out of the 165 initial reports, 150 were included. VA was measured with a log-scaled chart in 65%, with a crowded chart in 57%, and with a specified protocol in 51% of studies. All three criteria were met in 43% of studies and in multivariable logistic model, they were associated with more recent publication year (odds ratio [OR] = 1.11, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] = 1.03–1.20) and were more likely to be present in higher impact factor journals (OR = 1.42, 95%CI = 1.17–1.72) or randomized controlled trials (OR = 3.09, 95%CI = 1.44–6.59).

Conclusions

In the last two decades, more than half of clinical trials addressing amblyopia have not followed the recommended methodology for optimal visual acuity assessment. Thus, their measurements may have been contaminated with noise, and their respective results and conclusions may include errors. Adhering to optimal, standardized methodology is key to progress in both clinical and research grounds.

Keywords

Visual acuity logMAR Crowded Standardized protocol 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Bailey I, Lovie J (1976) New design principles for visual acuity letter charts. Am J Optom Physiol Optic 53:740–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lovie–Kitchin J (1988) Validity and reliability of visual acuity. Ophthal Physiol Opt 8:363–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Elliott D (2016) The good (logMAR), the bad (Snellen) and the ugly (BCVA, number of letters read) of visual acuity measurement. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 36:355–358.  https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.12310 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hartmann E, Dobson V, Hainline L et al (2001) Preschool vision screening: summary of a task force report. Ophthalmology 108:479–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lovie-Kitchin J (2015) Is it time to confine Snellen charts to the annals of history? Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 35:631–636.  https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.12252 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McGraw P, Winn B, Gray L, Elliott D (2000) Improving the reliability of visual acuity measures in young children. Ophthal Physiol Opt 20:173–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stewart C (2000) Comparison of Snellen and log-based acuity scores for school aged children. Br Orthopt J 57:32–38Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fern K, Manny R, Davis J, Gibson R (1986) Contour interaction in the preschool child. Am J Optom Physiol Optic 63:313–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rydberg A, Ericson B, Lennerstrand G et al (1999) Assessment of visual acuity in children aged 1 1/2-6 years, with normal and subnormal vision. Strabismus 7:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Elliott M, Firth A (2009) The logMAR Kay picture test and the logMAR acuity test: a comparative study. Eye(Lond) 23:85–88.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.eye.6702990 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hessa RF, Jacobsa RJ (1979) A preliminary report of acuity and contour interactions across the amblyope’s visual field. Vis Res 19:1403–1408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Blackhurst D, Maguire M (1989) Reproducibility of refraction and visual acuity measurement under a standard protocol. The Macular Photocoagulation Study Group. Retina 9:163–169Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bailey I, Lovie-Kitchin J (2013) Visual acuity testing. From the laboratory to the clinic. Vis Res 90:2–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2013.05.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Birch E, Strauber S, Beck R, Holmes J (2009) Comparison of the amblyopia treatment study HOTV and the electronic-early treatment of diabetic retinopathy study visual acuity protocols in amblyopic children aged 5 to 11 years. JAAPOS 13:75–78.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaapos.2008.07.007
  15. 15.
    Wilson M (2009) The art and science of examining a child. In: Wilson M, Trivedi R, Saunders R (eds) Pediatric ophthalmology: current thought and a practical guide. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Holmes J, Beck R, Repka M et al (2001) The amblyopia treatment study visual acuity testing protocol. Arch Ophthalmol 119:1345–1353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Williams M, Moutray T, Jackson A (2008) Uniformity of visual acuity measures in published studies. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 49:4321–4327.  https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.07-0511 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tsou B, Bressler N (2017) Visual acuity reporting in clinical research publications. JAMA Ophthalmol 135:651–653.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.0932 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Maldonado G, Greenland S (1993) Simulation study of confounder-selection strategies. Am J Epidemiol 138:923–936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group, Repka M, Kraker R et al (2015) A randomized trial of levodopa as treatment for residual amblyopia in older children. Ophthalmology 122:874–881.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.01.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Paudel P, Ramson P, Naduvilath T et al (2014) Prevalence of vision impairment and refractive error in school children in Ba Ria - Vung Tau province, Vietnam. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 42:217–226.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ceo.12273 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Li R, Ngo C, Nguyen J, Levi D (2011) Video-game play induces plasticity in the visual system of adults with amblyopia. PLoS Biol 9:e1001135.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001135 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Koklanis K, Le T, Georgievski Z (2010) The base-to-base induced-tropia prism test for detection of amblyopia: a pilot study. J AAPOS 14:484–487.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaapos.2010.08.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Holladay J (2004) Visual acuity measurements. J Cataract Refract Surg 30:287–290.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2004.01.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schulze-Bonsel K1, Feltgen N, Burau H, Hansen L, Bach M (2006) Visual acuities “hand motion” and “counting fingers” can be quantified with the freiburg visual acuity test. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 47(3):1236–1240CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IInd Department of Ophthalmology, Medical SchoolAristotle University of Thessaloniki “Papageorpiou” Hospital, N.EfkarpiaThessalonikiGreece
  2. 2.Naval Hospital of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options