我国现用视力表问题讨论

分别就我国现用《国际标准视力表》及《标准对数视力表》的设计，制作与应用上的问题，逐一进行比较和分析，以了解现状，发现问题,提出建议，以求尽快规范与统一我国视力表。长期实践表现用视力表均存在有自身的局限性，而且多表共存局面给医疗，预防及科研工作带来了诸多问题。为此，特提出几点具体建议。     

我国4种眼科学术期刊中视力相关问题的统计与分析

目的 了解《中华眼科杂志》《中国实用眼科杂志》《中华眼底病杂志》《眼视光学杂志》4种期刊中有关视力方面问题的统计.方法 仔细阅读2008年在这4种期刊中刊出的所有论文,记录每一篇论文的特征,包括是否提及视力、是否以视力作为结果、使用的视力表类型、视力检查细节、远近视力、视力矫正方式、视力记录法、视力的描述性统计等,采用Excel 2003软件对数据进行分类、整理、归纳和求百分比.结果 2008年这4种期刊共发表论文1111篇,提及视力的有476篇,以视力为结果的有237篇.在这237篇中,51篇提到其所使用的视力表类型,其中国际标准视力表占43.1%,标准对数视力表占29.4%;155篇提到了视力矫正方式,以最佳矫正为主;213篇在论文中体现了其所使用的视力记录法,小数记录法占75.1%,5分记录法占10.1%;216篇论文对视力进行了描述性统计,对视力进行分级的占66.7%,以均数±标准差表示的占24.5%.结论 国内眼科学术期刊在书写视力检查细节方面,特别是对视力数据的描述性统计方面还存在较大问题.加强我国眼科医生的眼视光学基础知识培训迫在眉睫,同时相关期刊编辑也需重视对该方面问题的审读.     

国家视力表的标准化问题

视力表在招生、招工、普查及眼科临床和科研中是非常重要而又十分常用的一个工具。迄今为止,视力表的设计已越来越趋向成熟,各国在视力表设计的核心内容方面基本趋向标准化。但人们在视力表的选择、设计和应用方面仍有一些困惑,笔者仅就国际上的视力表和我国国家标准对数视力表的发展历史、视力表设计的核心内容以及目前视力表使用中存在的问题进行述评,以避免在视力表选择和应用中存在的误区,使之更好地应用于视力普查、眼科临床和科研等各领域。     

本刊关于对视力记录和统计的要求

《标准对数视力表》是1990年由卫生部颁布在全国实施的,是国家规定使用的标准视力表。为了更好地推广国家标准,规范视力记录,本刊要求凡涉及视力记录和视力统计的来稿,均应使用标准对数视力表,并采用五分视力记录,以便准确、客观地进行视力统计以及统计学处理。本刊2003年第2期曾刊登过《本刊关于对视力记录和统计的要求》,现重申如下:①凡已使用标准对数视力表,但用小数记录者,请将小数记录转换为五分记录后再进行各项统计,使统计结果更准确、客观,不会产生偏差。②如使用其他视力表,记录是小数或分数者,亦请参照标准对数视力表的《各种视力换算表》将小数或分数视力记录转换成五分记录,这样不仅可以进行各项统计,而且不会产生大的误差。     

《标准对数视力表》上是否再增设视标的个人看法

《标准对数视力表》上是否再增设视标的个人看法河北省行唐县医院眼科郭良敏读《实用眼科杂志》第１０卷（１９９２）第４期第２３５页，徐广第氏的《标准近视力表再版说明和视力国标的商榷》一文，在该文的最后提出了四个问题供同道们研究商榷。其中第二个问题提出＂原有...     

探讨《标准对数视力表》变距应用图

卫生部卫监字(89)第3号文(关于颁发《标准对数视力表》的通知)明确指出:国家标准《标准对数视力表》(GBll533-89)于1990年5月1日起在全国实施,原国内沿用的《国际标准视力表》同时废止。这是我国标准化工作的一项重大措施。视力表是检测视力的常用工具,在卫生保健、眼科临床的视力检测及调查研究方面有着重要作用。我国从1952年起沿用至今的《国际标准视力表》,存在着视标增率不     

常用远用视力表的临床价值对照研究

目的:分析《标准对数视力表》与《低视力视力表》对远用视力检查的临床意义及临床价值。方法:随机抽取本院验光部验光患者59例(118眼),每位患者分别进行两种视力表的远用视力检查,然后记录裸眼视力以及矫正视力检查结果,再进行配对设计资料检验。结果:裸眼视力检查t=2.9944,矫正视力检查t=3.5564,P<0.05,两种视力表无论是裸眼视力还是矫正视力在统计学上均有显著性差异。结论:两种视力表的视力检查结果有所差异,裸眼视力相差19.953′视角,矫正视力相差15.849′视角,且低视力专用视力表的均值均小于标准对数视力表。     

视力表的历史、现状与发展趋势

视觉是人类最重要的感觉之一。视锐度反映了视觉系统辨别空间细节的能力,是临床实践中最常用的视功能评估指标。视力表是使用最广的视锐度测量工具。笔者回顾了国内外视力表的发展历程,简述了早期糖尿病视网膜病变治疗研究视力表和标准对数视力表的设计原理和计分规则。由于传统视力表自身的精度限制,其在视力普查和儿童青少年近视防控工作中的局限性也日益凸显,电子视力表代替传统视力表正逐渐成为趋势。笔者分析了当前不同电子视力表的硬件特性、软件算法逻辑和测量结果,发现显示屏的分辨率和尺寸、程序的测量和计分规则等多种参数设置的不统一可能会造成不同设备测量视力的结果不具有可比性。研发规范化的新型电子视力表势在必行。     

视力表应用常见误解之分析

视力表是眼科临床和视觉科学研究领域的重要检查工具,现针对临床和研究中比较容易被误解的视标增率、视力记录和部分研究论文中出现的视力统计等问题进行阐述,并以此解读视力表的设计核心内容,这将有利于对视力表的科学理解,避免应用上的失误,使视力表的使用更加科学和规范,如此可获得准确的视力记录和统计结果,使之更好科学应用于视力普查、眼科临床和科研等。     

体检用视力检查表的设计

在体检工作中,一般用国际标准视力表(以下简称“E表”)测定视力,延用已久,但很容易背熟,因而造成视力检查结果的误差,给工作带来麻烦。为了防止这种误差,国内曾出现简便旋转视力表、转盘视力表、单字式视力检查箱,以及视力放映灯等。这些检查器械虽能防止背诵,但费时较多,也不准确。有的用具体积大,价格贵,也不便推广使用。为了克服上述缺点,又能防止背诵,笔者对“E表”作了较大改动,制成专供体检用的视力表,介绍如下。     

近视性屈光参差者的近视力

目的:通过两对比度标准对数近视力表和汉字近视力表研究近视性屈光参差者和非屈光参差性近视者近视力的特点。方法:屈光参差≥2.00D的近视性屈光参差者18例,非屈光参差性近视者17例,运用框架眼镜完全矫正的基础上,分别运用两对比度的标准对数近视力表和汉字近视力表进行近视力的测量及分析。结果:近视性屈光参差实验组和中低度近视对照组在100%和10%两种对比度下,实验组和对照组所测得的双眼近视力之间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。无论近视性屈光参差实验组,还是中低度近视对照组,100%对比度下所得近视力值与10%对比度所得值差异均有统计学意义(P<0.01)。无论是在100%对比度,还是在10%对比度下,汉字近视力表所测得的视力值均较标准对数近视力表所测得值显著低。在100%和10%两种对比度下的标准对数近视力表和汉字近视力表所测得的近视力,中度近视组和低度近视组两组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:近视性屈光参差者与中低度近视者双眼近视力无显著差异,但其近视力均受对比度影响,对比度降低,近视力下降。汉字视力表测得近视力值比标准对数视力表测得值显著低。     

Contrast visual acuities in cataract patients. I. Comparison with normal subjects.

Contrast sensitivity and glare sensitivity are often abnormal in cataract patients. However, despite significant subjective complaints, relatively good visual acuities often are obtained with high-contrast optotypes. Using Variable-Contrast Visual Acuity Charts (VCVAC), we measured visual acuities of 40 eyes of 24 normal subjects (visual acuity greater than or equal to 1.0) aged 41 to 72 years, and 40 eyes of 28 cataract patients (visual acuity greater than or equal to 0.6) aged 44 to 81 years. The VCVAC consists of 4 different charts (1-4). The contrast is 90% in charts 1 and 4, 15% in chart 2 and 2.5% in chart 3. Chart 4 is the reverse polarity of chart 1. The decrease of visual acuity compared with the high-contrast chart (chart 1) was larger in the cataract group with both in the 15% contrast (0.52 vs. 0.71 octave) and the 2.5% contrast (1.21 vs. 1.75 octaves). In cataract group, 23/40 eyes (57.5%) showed better visual acuity with chart 4 than that of chart 1. In addition to high-contrast optotypes, acuity measurements using intermediate- to low-contrast optotypes, combined with the reverse polarity chart, seem effective in analyzing the visual disabilities caused by early cataract.     

Improving the reliability of visual acuity measures in young children.

Whilst the methodology of adult letter acuity measurement has been substantially refined over the last two decades, relatively little development has occurred in methods for quantifying letter acuity in young children. This study compares a recently developed visual acuity test (Glasgow Acuity Cards), which incorporates several key design features used in adult test charts to improve the sensitivity and reliability of visual acuity measurements. The equivalence of acuity measurements made with Glasgow Acuity Cards were compared with the Bailey-Lovie logMAR chart and Snellen chart in adults, and with traditional Single Letter Acuity and a modified Single Letter Acuity test in children. The test-retest reliability of acuity measurements made with Glasgow Acuity Cards and the Single Letter Acuity tests were also assessed in a large group of visually normal children. In addition, the ability of the pre-school letter acuity tests to detect differences in acuity between the two eyes, and to detect amblyopia were examined. Ninety-five percent of vision measurements made with the Bailey-Lovie chart and Glasgow Acuity Cards differ by less than 0.07 log unit. Furthermore, the sensitivity of Glasgow Acuity Cards to detecting changes in acuity longitudinally and inter-ocular differences in acuity is considerably greater as compared with traditional Single Letter Acuity tests. Improvements in paediatric acuity chart design are important for the effective detection and management of children with amblyopia.     

弱视患者远、近视力差异的临床观察

目的  了解弱视儿童近视力和远视力是否存在差异。设计 回顾性病例系列。研究对象 弱视儿童81例（139眼）。方法 对81例初次就诊的弱视患者进行屈光矫正,分别运用标准对数远视力表和标准对数近视力表进行矫正后远、近视力的测量及分析。对所有接受检查的弱视儿童分别按年龄、屈光度和病因进行分组统计分析。主要指标 近视力,远视力。结果 不同病因弱视患者的远近视力比较：屈光不正性弱视、屈光参差性弱视、斜视性弱视患者的平均近视力分别为0.48±0.27、0.47±0.28、0.45±0.30,平均远视力分别为0.46±0.22、0.40±0.20、0.43±0.30,各组的远近视力差异均无统计学意义（P均＞0.05）。不同年龄弱视患者的远近视力比较：3岁～≤5岁组、＞5岁～≤7岁组、＞7岁～12岁组的平均近视力分别为0.41±0.23、0.56±0.29、0.46±0.31,平均远视力分别为0.39±0.18、0.52±0.22、0.42±0.23,各年龄组患者的远近视力差异均无统计学意义（P均＞0.05）。不同屈光度弱视患者的远近视力比较：≤+4.00 D组和＞+4.00 D组平均近视力分别为0.45±0.26、0.48±0.28,平均远视力为0.40±0.30、0.46±0.21,两组屈光度患者的近视力与远视力平均值差异均无统计学意义（P均＞0.05）。结论 本研究结果显示,不同病因、不同年龄段、不同屈光度的弱视患者其远、近视力无明显差异。 （眼科,2013,22： 266-268）     

A comparison of visual acuity measured by ETDRS chart and Standard Logarithmic Visual Acuity chart among outpatients

AIM:To compare the results of visual acuity(VA)measured by Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study(ETDRS)chart,5 m Standard Logarithm Visual Acuity(5 SL)chart,and 2.5 m Standard Logarithm Visual Acuity(2.5 SL)chart in outpatients of age 12-80 y.METHODS:Each patient(totally 2000 outpatients)had both eyes tested with ETDRS chart at 4 m,5 SL chart at 5 m,and 2.5 SL chart at 2.5 m in random order.The VA values of outpatients were categorized by ages.VA values were expressed by log MAR recording method.RESULTS:The mean VA results of ETDRS charts,5 SL,and 2.5 SL chart were 0.52±0.28,0.50±0.30,and 0.46±0.28 log MAR,respectively.There was a statistically significant difference in the three eye charts in the whole group(P<0.001).For all subjects,the correlation of VA tested with three charts was statistically significant(Spearman correlation coefficient=0.944,0.937,0.946,all P<0.001).Bland–Altman analysis shows the 95%limits of agreement between the 5 SL and 2.5 SL chart were-0.182 to 0.210,-0.139 to 0.251,and-0.151 to 0.235 log MAR,respectively.CONCLUSION:The agreement between the three eye charts is not high.The VA measured by 5 SL chart is slightly better than that by ETDRS chart and 5 SL chart would be a suitable alternative when ETDRS chart are not available in the clinical situation.The VA measured by 2.5 SL chart is about 0.5 line better than VA tested with ETDRS chart,which may overestimate VA.     

Visual acuity measured via the Freiburg visual acuity test (FVT), Bailey Lovie chart and Landolt Ring chart

INTRODUCTION: If different ways for correcting refractive errors of the human eye have to be compared, accurate and reproducible measurement procedures are necessary. METHODS: Binocular visual acuity of 130 students without pathologies was measured with the Freiburg Visual Acuity Test, the Bailey-Lovie chart and a Landolt ring chart (4 orientations). The reproducibility of the FVT was determined by repeated measurements. RESULTS: The average visual acuity was 1.93 +/- 0.03 (= 20/10.4) with the FVT, 1.82 +/- 0.03 (= 20/11) with the Landolt ring chart, and 1.48 +/- 0.02 (= 20/13.5) with the Bailey-Lovie chart. 50 % of all repeated measurements with the FVT were within an interval of +/- 0.035 logMAR from the mean value. 95 % were within +/- 0.1 logMAR. Results of earlier studies are discussed. CONCLUSION: On average, visual acuity values found with the Freiburg Visual Acuity Test were slightly larger as compared to the Landolt ring chart (difference = 0.025 logMAR). Taking the maximal difference of 0.05 logMAR tolerated by the international standard DIN EN ISO 8597 into account, both tests are equivalent. The results found with the Bailey-Lovie chart were substantially lower as compared to the Landolt ring chart (difference = 0.09 logMAR). The Freiburg Visual Acuity Test has a high reproducibility and measures visual acuity on a continuous scale that is not limited to the traditional visual acuity steps. Thus, it can be recommended as a reference procedure for comparative visual acuity studies.     

Glasgow Acuity Cards: a new test for the measurement of letter acuity in children

Problems with design and format of the traditional Snellen chart have led to the development of alternative charts for the measurement of visual acuity in adults. However, advances in chart design for the measurement of visual acuity in pre-school children have not paralleled those used in adult test charts. Visual acuity can be measured in infants and very young children using behavioural and electro-physiological techniques but clinical measurement of letter acuity tends to commence when the child is old enough to interact and co-operate with the examiner. Charts which arc commercially available in the UK for measuring letter acuity in pre-school children (3–5 years old) either use single optotypes or are derivatives of the Snellen format. There is a need for a test of letter acuity for use with this young age group which is accurate, reliable and based upon sound and established design principles. Glasgow Acuity-Cards have been designed to include features that should allow change in letter acuity to be detected in pre-school children, especially those undergoing vision therapy training. The test is performed at 3 m and incorporates several design features which have been used previously in adult charts but are new to childrens' test charts. These include: linear progression of letter sizes using a log scale; letters of approximately equal legibility; equal number of letters per line; control of contour interaction; screening cards to determine initial level of acuity. The test is quick and easy to perform and should provide a means of detecting change in letter acuity, with increased confidence.     

Using the KM visual acuity chart for more reliable evaluation of amblyopia compared to the HVOT method

PURPOSE: To evaluate a new letter matching visual acuity (VA) chart (the KM chart) for children aged 5-7 years, designed as a Monoyer-based chart, in order to obtain a better consistency between school and preschool VA recordings. METHODS: Visual acuities were assessed using three methods: the HVOT, KM and Monoyer charts. Comparisons were made between the KM method versus the HVOT and Monoyer methods, respectively. Children with normal vision and with different degrees of amblyopia were investigated. RESULTS: Visual acuity levels appeared significantly higher in children with amblyopia when tested with the HVOT chart than when tested with the KM chart. Visual acuities obtained with the Monoyer and KM methods were comparable. The difference between the Monoyer and KM methods on the one hand, and the HVOT method on the other, can be explained by the fact that the HVOT chart elicits less crowding effect than the other two charts. CONCLUSIONS: Visual acuity in children with amblyopia might be overestimated if the HVOT test alone is used to assess vision. Use of the HVOT chart, therefore, should be restricted to the 3.5-4.5 years age group, for whom the KM chart is somewhat too difficult. In our opinion the KM chart should be preferred for use with older preschool children because it shows good consistency with the Monoyer chart.