Department of Ophthalmology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital - Kaohsiung Medical Center, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taiwan.
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2011 Apr;249(4):601-5. doi: 10.1007/s00417-010-1461-3. Epub 2010 Jul 24.
We compared the Landolt C chart checked under normal clinical conditions and the Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart, using standard clinical research protocols for subjects with normal vision, cataract and maculopathy.
This prospective, comparative study was approved by the hospital Institutional Review Board. Patients with cataract and maculopathy were included, with the normal fellow eyes analyzed as normal vision group. Differences between the two charts were analyzed using Student's t-test.
Normal and cataract eyes showed no statistically significant differences between methods. In the maculopathy group, ETDRS acuity (0.714 ± 0.393) was better than Landolt C acuity (0.845 ± 0.579), but the differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.152). Furthermore, if after dividing visual acuity into subgroups, >20/200 and ≤20/200 by Landolt C acuity, the latter subgroup had significant differences between the two tests (p < 0.001). ETDRS acuity (1.014 ± 0.319) was better than Landolt C acuity (1.419 ± 0.385). The average acuity difference was 4 lines.
For maculopathy patients with VA ≤ 20/200, the ETDRS chart had a better score than the Landolt C chart.
我们比较了在正常临床条件下检查的 Landolt C 图表和早期糖尿病视网膜病变研究（ETDRS）图表，使用标准的临床研究方案对视力正常、白内障和黄斑病变的受试者进行了比较。
这项前瞻性、对照研究得到了医院机构审查委员会的批准。纳入白内障和黄斑病变患者，将正常对侧眼作为视力正常组进行分析。使用学生 t 检验分析两种图表之间的差异。
正常眼和白内障眼在两种方法之间无统计学差异。在黄斑病变组中，ETDRS 视力（0.714 ± 0.393）优于 Landolt C 视力（0.845 ± 0.579），但差异无统计学意义（p = 0.152）。此外，如果根据 Landolt C 视力将视力分为>20/200 和≤20/200 两个亚组，后者亚组两种检查方法之间有显著差异（p < 0.001）。ETDRS 视力（1.014 ± 0.319）优于 Landolt C 视力（1.419 ± 0.385）。平均视力差异为 4 行。
对于视力≤20/200 的黄斑病变患者，ETDRS 图表的评分优于 Landolt C 图表。
