Becker R, Teichler G, Gräf M
Gemeinschaftspraxis für Augenheilkunde, Limburg.
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2011 Oct;228(10):864-7. doi: 10.1055/s-0031-1281758. Epub 2011 Oct 13.
Results of visual acuity determination can differ depending on the stimuli being used, even if their critical details appear under the same visual angle. In this study, visual acuity measured with the Landolt C was compared to acuity measured with ETDRS charts in subjects with and without visual disorders.
One hundred patients (age 8 to 90 years) with strabismus amblyopia (39), refractive amblyopia (5), cataract (24) and maculopathy (32) as well as 13 healthy volunteers (age 18 to 33 years) were examined. Retro-illuminated ETDRS 1, 2 and R charts (Lighthouse) and a retro-illuminated Landolt C chart with the same arrangement of optotypes (Precision Vision) were used. Three out of 5 optotypes in each line had to be correctly identified. In the patient group, the eyes with the lower visual acuity were tested, while the right eyes of the healthy subjects were monitored. Wrong answers were monitored and the results were noted in interpolated logMAR.
Differences between Landolt C (LC) and ETDRS acuity were only small and statistically not significant. LogMAR values (SEM in parentheses) for LC /ETDRS 1 were: entire group: 0.60 (0.04)/ 0.55 (0.04), strabismus amblyopia: 0.85 (0.08)/ 0.80 (0.08), refractive amblyopia: 0.27 (0.04)/ 0.23 (0.05), cataract: 0.57 (0.07)/ 0.51 (0.07), retinal disease: 0.67 (0.06)/ 0.61 (0.06), healthy eyes: -0.17 (0.03)/ -0.17 (0.02). The mean difference between LC and ETDRS 1 was 0.49 lines in the entire group and 0.51 lines in strabismus amblyopia in favour of ETDRS 1 values. ETDRS 2 and R charts yielded similar results.
In healthy subjects and in patients with various eye disorders including strabismus amblyopia, there was only a slight difference between visual acuity measured by ETDRS charts compared to the Landolt C. Comparing data of different settings it must be considered that in the lower visual acuity range (< 0.32), the mean ETDRS acuity of adults overestimates the Landolt C acuity by 0.5 and 1.0 line.
即使不同视力测定刺激的关键细节在相同视角下呈现,其视力测定结果仍可能存在差异。在本研究中,对患有和未患有视觉障碍的受试者,比较了使用Landolt C测定的视力与使用ETDRS视力表测定的视力。
检查了100例患者(年龄8至90岁),包括斜视性弱视(39例)、屈光性弱视(5例)、白内障(24例)和黄斑病变(32例),以及13名健康志愿者(年龄18至33岁)。使用了后照式ETDRS 1、2和R视力表(灯塔公司)以及具有相同视标排列的后照式Landolt C视力表(精密视觉公司)。每行5个视标中必须正确识别3个。在患者组中,测试视力较低的眼睛,而对健康受试者的右眼进行监测。监测错误答案,并以插值对数最小分辨角记录结果。
Landolt C(LC)视力与ETDRS视力之间的差异很小,且无统计学意义。LC/ETDRS 1的对数最小分辨角值(括号内为标准误)为:整个组:0.60(0.04)/0.55(0.04),斜视性弱视:0.85(0.08)/0.80(0.08),屈光性弱视:0.27(0.04)/0.23(0.05),白内障:0.57(0.07)/0.51(0.07),视网膜疾病:0.67(0.06)/0.61(0.06),健康眼睛:-0.17(0.03)/-0.17(0.02)。整个组中LC与ETDRS 1的平均差异为0.49行,斜视性弱视组为0.51行,ETDRS 1的值更优。ETDRS 2和R视力表得出了类似结果。
在健康受试者以及包括斜视性弱视在内的各种眼部疾病患者中,与Landolt C相比,ETDRS视力表测定的视力仅存在轻微差异。在比较不同检测结果的数据时,必须考虑到在较低视力范围(<0.32)内,成年人的平均ETDRS视力比Landolt C视力高估0.5行和1.0行。