Validation of an automated‐ETDRS near and intermediate visual acuity measurement

REFERENCES

• Early treatment diabetic retinopathy study design and baseline patient characteristics. ETDRS report number 7. Ophthalmology 1991; 98: 741–756.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Photocoagulation for diabetic macular edema. Early treatment diabetic retinopathy study report number 1. Early treatment diabetic retinopathy study research group. Arch Ophthalmol 1985; 103: 1796–1806.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. A randomized trial of atropine vs. patching for treatment of moderate amblyopia in children. Arch Ophthalmol 2002; 120: 268–278.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmes JM, Edwards AR, Beck RW et al. A randomized pilot study of near activities versus non‐near activities during patching therapy for amblyopia. J AAPOS 2005; 9: 129–136.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmes JM, Kraker RT, Beck RW et al. A randomized trial of prescribed patching regimens for treatment of severe amblyopia in children. Ophthalmology 2003; 110: 2075–2087.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Told R, Baratsits M, Garhofer G et al. Early treatment diabetic retinopathy study (ETDRS) visual acuity. Ophthalmologe 2013; 110: 960–965.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koenig S, Tonagel F, Schiefer U et al. Assessing visual acuity across five disease types: ETDRS charts are faster with clinical outcome comparable to Landolt Cs. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2014; 252: 1093–1099.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang ZT, Zhang SC, Huang XG et al. A pilot trial of the iPad tablet computer as a portable device for visual acuity testing. J Telemed Telecare 2013; 19: 55–59.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bokinni Y, Shah N, Maguire O et al. Performance of a computerised visual acuity measurement device in subjects with age‐related macular degeneration: comparison with gold standard ETDRS chart measurements. Eye (Lond) 2015; 29: 1085–1091.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black JM, Jacobs RJ, Phillips G et al. An assessment of the iPad as a testing platform for distance visual acuity in adults. BMJ Open 2013; 3: e002730.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aslam TM, Parry NR, Murray IJ et al. Development and testing of an automated computer tablet‐based method for self‐testing of high and low contrast near visual acuity in ophthalmic patients. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2016; 254: 891–899.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ravikumar A, Sarver EJ, Applegate RA. Change in visual acuity is highly correlated with change in six image quality metrics independent of wavefront error and/or pupil diameter. J Vis 2012; 12: 11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ravikumar A, Marsack JD, Bedell HE et al. Change in visual acuity is well correlated with change in image‐quality metrics for both normal and keratoconic wavefront errors. J Vis 2013; 13: 28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Applegate RA, Marsack JD, Thibos LN. Metrics of retinal image quality predict visual performance in eyes with 20/17 or better visual acuity. Optom Vis Sci 2006; 83: 635–640.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camparini M, Cassinari P, Ferrigno L et al. ETDRS‐fast: implementing psychophysical adaptive methods to standardized visual acuity measurement with ETDRS charts. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2001; 42: 1226–1231.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reeves BC, Wood JM, Hill AR. Reliability of high‐ and low‐contrast letter charts. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1993; 13: 17–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kheterpal S, Jones HS, Auld R et al. Reliability of visual acuity in children with reduced vision. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1996; 16: 447–449.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barrio A, Antona B, Puell MC. Repeatability of mesopic visual acuity measurements using high‐ and low‐contrast ETDRS letter charts. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2015; 253: 791–795.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raasch TW, Bailey IL, Bullimore MA. Repeatability of visual acuity measurement. Optom Vis Sci 1998; 75: 342–348.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blackhurst DW, Maguire MG. Reproducibility of refraction and visual acuity measurement under a standard protocol. The macular photocoagulation study group. Retina 1989; 9: 163–169.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lovie‐kitchin JE. Validity and reliability of visual acuity measurements. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1988; 8: 363–370.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manny RE, Hussein M, Gwiazda J et al. Repeatability of ETDRS visual acuity in children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003; 44: 3294–3300.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cho P, Woo GC. Repeatability of the Waterloo four‐contrast LogMAR visual acuity chart and near vision test card on a group of normal young adults. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2004; 24: 427–435.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lam AK, Tong C, Tse J et al. Repeatability of near visual acuity measurement at high and low contrast. Clin Exp Optom 2008; 91: 447–452.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosser DA, Murdoch IE, Cousens SN. The effect of optical defocus on the test‐retest variability of visual acuity measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004; 45: 1076–1079.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dougherty BE, Flom RE, Bullimore MA. An evaluation of the Mars letter contrast sensitivity test. Optom Vis Sci 2005; 82: 970–975.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elliott DB, Yang KC, Whitaker D. Visual acuity changes throughout adulthood in normal, healthy eyes: seeing beyond 6/6. Optom Vis Sci 1995; 72: 186–191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carkeet A. Modeling logMAR visual acuity scores: effects of termination rules and alternative forced‐choice options. Optom Vis Sci 2001; 78: 529–538.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shah N, Dakin SC, Whitaker HL et al. Effect of scoring and termination rules on test‐retest variability of a novel high‐pass letter acuity chart. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2014; 55: 1386–1392.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsilimbaris MK, Plainis S, Tontos C et al. Normative distance, intermediate and near visual acuity in simulated presbyopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011; 52: 2833.
   Google Scholar
• Carkeet A, Lister LJ. Computer monitor pixellation and Sloan letter visual acuity measurement. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2018; 38: 144–151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carkeet A. Exact parametric confidence intervals for bland‐Altman limits of agreement. Optom Vis Sci 2015; 92: e71–e80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar