Moutray Tanya Natasha, Williams Michael Andrew, Jackson A J
Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, UK.
Ophthalmologica. 2008;222(3):173-7. doi: 10.1159/000126080. Epub 2008 May 22.
To report any differences in the visual acuity (VA) recording method used in peer-reviewed ophthalmology clinical studies over the past decade.
We reviewed the method of assessing and reporting VA in 160 clinical studies from 2 UK and 2 US peer-reviewed journals, published in 1994 and 2004.
The method used to assess VA was specified in 62.5% of UK-published and 60% of US-published papers. In the results sections of the UK publications the VA measurements presented were Snellen acuity (n = 58), logMAR acuity (n = 20) and symbol acuity (n = 1). Similarly in the US publications the VA was recorded in the results section using Snellen acuity (n = 60) and logMAR acuity (n = 14). Overall 10% of the authors appeared to convert Snellen acuity measurements to logMAR format. Five studies (3%) chose to express Snellen-type acuities in decimal form, a method which can easily lead to confusion given the increased use of logMAR scoring systems.
The authors recommend that to ensure comparable visual results between studies and different study populations it would be useful if clinical scientists worked to standardized VA testing protocols and reported results in a manner consistent with the way in which they are measured.
报告过去十年间同行评审的眼科临床研究中使用的视力（VA）记录方法的差异。
我们回顾了1994年和2004年在2种英国和2种美国同行评审期刊上发表的160项临床研究中评估和报告VA的方法。
62.5%的英国发表论文和60%的美国发表论文明确了评估VA的方法。在英国出版物的结果部分，呈现的VA测量值为Snellen视力（n = 58）、logMAR视力（n = 20）和符号视力（n = 1）。同样，在美国出版物的结果部分，VA记录为Snellen视力（n = 60）和logMAR视力（n = 14）。总体而言，10%的作者似乎将Snellen视力测量值转换为logMAR格式。五项研究（3%）选择以小数形式表示Snellen型视力，鉴于logMAR评分系统的使用增加，这种方法很容易导致混淆。
作者建议，为确保不同研究及不同研究人群之间视力结果具有可比性，临床科学家应制定标准化的VA测试方案，并以与测量方式一致的方式报告结果。
