Validation of electronic visual acuity (EVA) measurement against standardised ETDRS charts in patients with visual field loss from inherited retinal degenerations.
Clicks: 371
ID: 57799
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
371 views
51 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #6 of 14 articles by views in the british journal of ophthalmology
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
With the increase in clinical trials testing therapy for retinal disease, there is a need to ensure that outcome measures are both accurate and standardised. The US Food and Drug Administration favours the use of visual acuity measured using ETDRS logMAR charts. The loss of visual field can interfere with visual tracking across the charts, leading to increased variability of measurements. Electronic visual acuity (EVA) presents the optotype on the centre of a screen, thereby removing the tracking element of the task, and may provide a more precise measurement.Visual acuity was measured twice using ETDRS charts, EVA automated single letter (E-ETDRS) and EVA single line (EVA-SL) presentation (EMMES). Patients underwent microperimetry (MAIA; Centervue) to determine visual field. We tested 65 patients with rod-cone dystrophies and 41 healthy volunteers.Both participant groups read 2-3 letters more on average on the electronic charts compared with ETDRS. Limits of agreement using a modified Bland-Altman analysis account for replicates were wider in eyes with foveal defects (-9 to 18) compared with eyes without foveal defects (-11 to 15). Electronic charts in the presence of foveal defects reduced the range (-11 to 13).EVA may provide more accurate measures of visual acuity than traditional ETDRS charts in patients when the visual field loss encroached on the central vision. Electronic presentation with a single line of letters was the favoured style reported by patients and should be considered in future interventional clinical trials.
| Reference Key |
jolly2019validationthe
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Jolly, Jasleen K;Juenemann, Kristin;Boagey, Heather;Nadsady, Marie;Bridge, Holly;Maclaren, Robert E; |
| Journal | the british journal of ophthalmology |
| Year | 2019 |
| DOI |
bjophthalmol-2019-315124
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.