智能视力表投影仪的可重复性及其与传统视力表的比较

目的：分析智能视力表投影仪在视力检查中的可重复性及其与传统视力表测量结果的比较。方法：系列病例研究。收集2022年1月4—22日在首都医科大学附属北京同仁医院就诊的眼部不适患者60例（120眼）。先通过智能视力表投影仪（LSJ-IVAC-6000A）对患者进行3次视力检测,并采用组内相关系数（ICC）评价3次测量结果之间的可重复性;再用传统灯箱的国家标准视力表测量1次,并分别采用ICC和Bland-Altman图表法分析智能视力表投影仪与传统视力表检测结果的一致性。结果：同一受检者右眼、左眼使用智能视力表投影仪测量3次的ICC值分别为0.830和0.868,双眼的ICC值均>0.8（P<0.001）;同一受检者右眼、左眼使用智能视力表投影仪和传统灯箱的国家标准视力表测量的ICC值分别为0.846和0.873,双眼的ICC值均>0.8（P<0.001）。右眼、左眼使用智能视力表投影仪和传统灯箱的国家标准视力表测量差值的95%一致性界限分别为-0.25~0.20和-0.24~0.17。结论：智能视力表投影仪的可重复性较好,与传统灯箱的国家标准视力表的测量结果相比一致性较强,应用于临床工作中可提高视力筛查的效率并节省人力和物力。     

新型对数视力表与“C”形对数视力表的一致性与稳定性分析

目的评价新型对数视力表与具有8个方向视标选项的“C”形对数视力表之间的一致性与稳定性。方法 横断面研究。对48例应届高中毕业生分别进行新型对数视力表与“C”形对数视力表的视力检查,采用组内相关系数（ICC）和Cronbach′s Alpha系数分析视力测量结果的重复性,采用Bland-Altman分析一致性。结果 “C”形对数视力表Cronbach′s Alpha系数在0.8以上,ICC接近0.9,新型对数视力表Cronbach′s Alpha系数接近0.8,ICC＞0.75,均显示较好的重测稳定性。2种视力表第1次和第2次视力测量均具有较好的一致性,95％一致性界限分别为（0.173,-0.133）logMAR和（0.198,-0.116）logMAR。结论 新型对数视力表检查结果稳定,和“C”形对数视力表一致性较好。     

Lea Symbols电子视力表与灯箱视力表在儿童视力检查中的对比研究

目的 比较类纸屏承载的电子视力表与灯箱视力表在儿童视力检查中的准确性、一致性及差异。方法前瞻性自身对照交叉设计临床试验研究。以分层整群抽样方法选取拉萨市7所小学共1506名二年级儿童,其中男生802名,女生704名,平均年龄8.5±0.5岁。在相同测试环境下,由经过培训的专业人员使用以Lea symbols为视标的灯箱视力表和类纸屏电子视力表进行检查,两种视力表的检查顺序随机决定,并以LogMAR计数进行分析。采用组内相关系数计算两种视力表测量值的相关性,使用散点图及Bland-Altman检验图观察两种视力表测量的分布情况。结果 灯箱视力表测得平均LogMAR视力为右眼0.13±0.19,左眼0.14±0.20,电子视力表测得平均LogMAR视力为右眼0.08±0.20,左眼0.09±0.20。两种视力表测得总体视力值一致性较好且呈明显正相关趋势(ICC_OD=0.91,ICC_OS=0.89,P<0.001)。灯箱视力表和类纸屏电子视力表测量的总体平均差值为右眼0.05±0.11,左眼0.05±0.12,在各个视力范围内电子视力表测量的...     

灯箱视力表与Freiburg电子视力表应用对比研究

目的 比较灯箱视力表与Freiburg电子视力表结果的一致性与可重复性,评价Freiburg电子视力表的临床应用价值。设计 诊断性技术评价。研究对象 空军杭州航空医学鉴定训练中心的工作人员86例,平均年龄（26.3±2.1）岁。方法 所有入选者均随机由2位固定检查者分别使用灯箱视力表和Freiburg电子视力表进行检查,两种视力表检查的顺序随机决定。所有检查均在同一房间内完成,房间内亮度小于3 lux。检查距离均为3 m。对不同视力表间与检查者间测量重复性采用配对t检验比较结果的差别并计算相关系数r值。主要指标 使用两种视力表获得的logMAR视力。结果 在检查者一,用灯箱视力表查,被检者logMAR视力为0.19±0.23,Freiburg电子视力表0.20±0.15,两者差值为-0.011±0.141,差异无统计学意义（t=-0.741, P=0.461）,但有显著相关性（r=0.808,P=0.000）。在检查者二,用灯箱视力表查,被检者logMAR视力为0.32±0.25,Freiburg电子视力表为0.20±0.15,两者差值为-0.118±0.151,差异有统计学意义（t=7.191, P=0.000）及显著相关性（r=0.810,P=0.000）。均用灯箱视力表,检查者一、二的差异有统计学意义（F=11.872,P=0.001）,两者显著相关（r=0.938,P=0.000）。而均用Freiburg电子视力表,检查者一、二的差异无统计学意义（F=0.019,P=0.890）,两者显著相关（r=0.986,P=0.000）。结论 Freiburg电子视力表受检查者因素的影响小于灯箱视力表,其在不同测量者间的可重复性优于灯箱视力表。（眼科, 2013, 22: 117-120）     

拥挤Kay图片视力表在学龄前儿童视力筛查中的应用

目的：采用拥挤Kay图片视力表检测学龄前儿童视力,并和标准对数视力表检测结果进行比较,探讨2种视力表检测结果是否具有一致性,以补充不能完成标准对数视力表检测的学龄前儿童的视力筛查。方法：前瞻性自身对照研究。于2021年1─5月随机选取济南市章丘区某幼儿园152名学龄前儿童进行全面眼科筛查,分别使用拥挤Kay图片视力表及标准对数视力表对其进行视力检测,并采用Wilcoxon检验进行2种视力差异性的比较,Spearman秩相关分析及Bland-Altman分析进行相关性及一致性分析。结果：152名儿童参与筛查,其中129名儿童屈光状态正常且能配合2种视力表检测。129名儿童中男74名,女55名,年龄为（52.3±7.0）个月;拥挤Kay图片测得LogMAR视力为0.10（0.09,0.10）,标准对数视力表视力为0.10（0.10,0.22）;2种视力检查方法有较好的相关性（r=0.436,P<0.001）,拥挤Kay视力表检测结果略高于标准视力表约0.04 LogMAR,差异有统计学意义（Z=-6.124,P<0.001）,Bland-Altman散点图显示98.4%的点均在一致性范围内;参与筛查儿童Kay图片视力检查配合度更高（χ2=18.007,P<0.001）。不同月龄拥挤Kay图片视力检测结果差异有统计学意义（H=13.791,P=0.003）,随年龄增长,视力呈递增趋势。结论：拥挤Kay图片视力表用于学龄前儿童视力检测,患儿配合程度高,其结果与标准对数视力表相比有较好的一致性,但Kay图片视力表所检查的视力结果高于标准视力表约0.04 LogMAR,在参考视力结果时应相应调整视力标准。     

Lea Symbols视力表在42～78个月儿童视力检查中的重复测量可信度分析

目的：探讨Lea Symbols视力表在学龄前儿童视力检查中的重复测量可信度。方法：横断面研究。 2017年4-5月对泉州市泉港区实验幼儿园的250名42～78（61.9±10.3）个月的学龄前儿童进行全面 的眼科检查,使用Lea Symbols视力表重复测量右、左眼的单眼远视力,采用LogMAR记录法记录 视力值。采用Bland-Altman分析、加权Kappa检验、组内相关系数3种统计分析方法衡量2次测量之 间的重复测量可信度。结果：3种分析方法均显示Lea Symbols视力表在学龄前儿童视力检查中的重 复测量可信度较好,2次测量间视力的差值94.3%在1行以内,2次测量的视力值之间的相关性较高 （r=0.753,P<0.001）。在139名屈光正常儿童中,2次测量的视力值（LogMAR）平均相差0.014。在 139名屈光正常儿童中,视力与月龄的相关性是显著的,月龄越大视力越好（r第1次=-0.335,P<0.001; r第2次=-0.424,P<0.001）;性别对可重复性没有影响（P=0.197）。结论：Lea Symbols视力表可用于 中国42个月及以上学龄前儿童的视力检查,可以在临床视力检查中推广使用。     

灯箱视力表与电脑视力表临床应用对比研究

目的:通过与灯箱视力表的对比研究了解电脑视力表的临床使用价值。方法:选取初三学生63例(126眼)同时用灯箱和电脑视力表进行远用视力检测,对视力检测值进行配对检验。结果:两种视力表检测值的t检验等于1.2671,P>0.20,两种视力表的检测在统计学上无显著性差异。结论:电脑视力表和灯箱视力表在临床上具有相同的应用价值,可以推广和普及。     

ETDRS对数视力表在儿童视力检查中的可重复性分析

目的：探讨ETDRS对数视力表对儿童视力检查的可重复性及其影响的相关因素。方法：在流行病学调查的过程中，随机使用ETDRS对数视力表，为250位裸眼视力低于0．5和98位视力正常儿童进行裸眼视力重复检查。结果：两次视力测量之间差异的均数为0．004log±0．07；Kappa分析结果具有很好的一致性（k=0．71）；性别与视力检查一致性无明显相关（P=0．845）；年龄与视力检查一致性有显著相关性（P=0．019），年龄越小视力检查一致性越差；屈光不正与视力检查一致性也有显著相关性（P=0．000），近视度数在-1．00D—-5．00D之间的儿童视力检查一致性相对差．而正视眼的视力检查一致性较好。结论：结果提示ETDRS对数视力表适合儿童视力检查，建议推广使用。眼科学报2008；24：48-52．     

液晶视力表显示精度与显示屏点距的相关性分析

目的探讨液晶视力表测量精度与显示屏点距的关系。方法 采用标准对照研究方法,调查常用显示屏相关参数,与新标准对数视力表国家标准（GB11533-2011）的视标大小及允许误差进行推算、对比研究。结果 液晶视力表在亮度、幅宽、白度、照明方面完全符合（GB11533-2011）要求;在液晶显示精度方面,0.27 mm点距的显示屏可准确测试远视力≤5.0视力;0.1245 mm点距显示屏可准确测试远视力≤5.2视力;点距0.077 mm的显示屏准确测试远视力≤5.3视力。结论 选择合适点距和测试距离可使液晶视力表测试结果更精确。     

噪声视力表在儿童视力检查中的可重复性分析

目的探讨噪声视力表对儿童视力检查的可重复性及其相关影响因素。方法在门诊首诊患儿中,随机选择无理解障碍及除屈光不正外无其他器质性眼病儿童200例,使用噪声视力表进行噪声视力重复检查。采用配对t检验进行统计学分析。结果两次视力测量之间差异的均数为O.03行,（P=0.515）;两次视力测量结果按性别分组无明显差异（P=1.0,P=0.262）;按年龄分组亦无明显差异（P=0.159,P=0.786）;按屈光不正分组,其中近视组两次视力测量结果有明显差异（P=0.010）。近视儿童视力检查一致性较差,而正视及远视儿童的视力检查一致性较好（P=0.133,P=0.083）。结论结果提示噪声视力表适合儿童视力检查,建议推广使用。     

Validation of Simplified Visual Acuity Testing Protocols in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis

High- and low-contrast visual acuity (HCVA, LCVA) are potential quantitative markers of neurological dysfunction in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). The complex nature and duration of gold standard (GS) protocols precludes widespread use in neurology settings. This study compares simplified to GS visual acuity (VA) protocols. Monocular HCVA and LCVA were measured in ALS (n = 10) and control (n = 4) subjects using six protocols, varying by two chart and three refraction methods. Intraclass correlation coefficients between simplified and GS protocols ranged from 0.83 to 0.98 (HCVA, excellent agreement) and 0.56 to 0.75 (LCVA, moderate agreement). Differences between LCVA and GS protocols exceeded test-retest reliability. Simplified HCVA protocols using LCD (liquid crystal display) tablet charts and/or pinhole correction produced valid measurements. None of the modified LCVA testing protocols produced valid measurements.     

Screening for myopia and refractive errors using LogMAR visual acuity by optometrists and a simplified visual acuity chart by nurses.

PURPOSE: To compare the sensitivity and specificity of a widespread method of screening for refractive errors in Singapore schoolchildren using a simplified acuity screening chart with a more rigorous method using the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart. A secondary aim is to estimate the best cutoff values for the detection of refractive errors using these two methods. METHODS: This is a population-based study, involving 1779 schoolchildren from three schools in Singapore. Logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) visual acuity was recorded using a modified Bailey-Lovie chart by trained optometrists, and visual acuity measurement was also undertaken using a simplified 7-line visual acuity screening chart by school health nurses. The main outcome measures were the receiver-operating characteristics (ROC's) of logMAR and the simplified screening visual acuity to detect myopia or any refractive errors. The difference between measurements, simplified screening visual acuity--logMAR visual acuity, was calculated. RESULTS: The optimal threshold using the simplified screening visual acuity chart for the detection of myopia or any refractive error was 6/12 or worse. Using logMAR visual acuity, the most efficient threshold for the detection of myopia was 0.26, but this was 0.18 for the detection of any refractive error. The area under the ROC curves was significantly greater in the case of the logMAR visual acuity measurement compared with the simplified screening visual acuity measurement for the detection of myopia or any refractive errors. The 95% limits of agreement for the two methods (simplified screening--logMAR acuity) was -0.219 to +0.339. CONCLUSIONS: Bearing in mind that the visual acuity measurements were performed by two different groups of professionals, visual acuity screening using the ETDRS method appears to be more accurate than the simplified charts for the detection of myopia or any refractive errors in children.     

Construction and validation of a Tamil logMAR chart

Purpose:  To design, construct and validate a new Tamil logMAR visual acuity chart based on current recommendations.
Methods:  Ten Tamil letters of equal legibility were identified experimentally and were used in the chart. Two charts, one internally illuminated and one externally illuminated, were constructed for testing at 4 m distance. The repeatability of the two charts was tested. For validation, the two charts were compared with a standard English logMAR chart (ETDRS).
Results:  When compared to the ETDRS chart, a difference of 0.06 ± 0.07 and 0.07 ± 0.07 logMAR was found for the internally and externally illuminated charts respectively. Limits of agreement between the internally illuminated Tamil logMAR chart and ETDRS chart were found to be (−0.08, 0.19), and (−0.07, 0.20) for the externally illuminated chart. The test – retest results showed a difference of 0.02 ± 0.04 and 0.02 ± 0.06 logMAR for the internally and externally illuminated charts respectively. Limits of agreement for repeated measurements for the internally illuminated Tamil logMAR chart were found to be (−0.06, 0.10), and (−0.10, 0.14) for the externally illuminated chart.
Conclusions:  The newly constructed Tamil logMAR charts have good repeatability. The difference in visual acuity scores between the newly constructed Tamil logMAR chart and the standard English logMAR chart was within acceptable limits. This new chart can be used for measuring visual acuity in the literate Tamil population.     

Clinical assessment of two new contrast sensitivity charts

BACKGROUND: Contrast sensitivity measurement in UK clinical practice is most commonly performed with the Pelli-Robson chart. AIMS: To compare the repeatability of two new contrast sensitivity charts and to measure their agreement with the Pelli-Robson charts. METHOD: Contrast sensitivity was measured monocularly using two versions of the Mars letter contrast sensitivity chart, two presentations on the Test Chart 2000 and two versions of the Pelli-Robson chart. Bland-Altman techniques were used to assess repeatability and agreement. RESULTS: 53 subjects were recruited with visual acuity from 6/4 to 6/72. The coefficient of repeatability was 0.182 for the Pelli-Robson chart, 0.121 for the Mars chart and 0.238 for Test Chart 2000. Limits of agreement with the Pelli-Robson chart were -0.29 to +0.15 log units for the Mars letter contrast sensitivity chart and -0.32 to +0.78 log units for the Test Chart 2000. For patients with poor contrast sensitivity, the limits of agreement between the Test Chart 2000 and the Pelli-Robson chart improved from -0.33 to +0.15 log units. CONCLUSION: In a population of hospital ophthalmology patients, the coefficient of repeatability is better for the Mars chart and worse for the Test Chart 2000 when compared with the Pelli-Robson chart. The electronic test chart does not agree well with the Pelli-Robson chart, although this might simply be due to the performance of liquid crystal display screens at low contrast levels. The Mars letter contrast sensitivity chart shows good validity and reasonable agreement with the Pelli-Robson chart.     

A modified ETDRS visual acuity chart for European-wide use.

PURPOSE: The log MAR visual acuity (VA) chart developed for use in the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) is composed of 10 Sloan letters, which are not used in the Greek, Cyrillic, and Central European alphabets. In this study we evaluate a modified ETDRS chart, the University of Crete (UoC) chart, which contains a set of letters readable by all European citizens. METHODS: In the UoC charts, the letters C, D, R, N, V, S, and Z were substituted with E, P, B, X, Y, A, and T, respectively. The similarity between the modified and the standard acuity charts was evaluated using two procedures. First, VA of 227 secondary school children (454 eyes) was evaluated using both sets of charts. Second, the relative difficulty for the identification of individual Sloan letters used in both charts, as well as letter M, was assessed from psychometric functions for five subjects. RESULTS: Bland-Altman plots revealed no statistical significant differences in the value of VA between the standard and the UoC set of charts. Although, estimates of identification log MAR threshold showed relatively significant interletter variability, in total, the new set of Sloan letters was equally identifiable with the original set. CONCLUSIONS: The overall pattern of results suggests that the modified log MAR UoC charts forms a valid alternative to the ETDRS for assessing VA in multinational clinical trials, offering the advantage of containing letters recognizable by a wider population basis, such as European citizens, as well as subjects from countries using the Cyrillic alphabet.