Private NivEye Center, Adana, Turkey.
Ankara University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Ophthalmology, Vision Studies and Low Vision Rehabilitation Unit, Ankara, Turkey.
Turk J Ophthalmol. 2022 Jun 29;52(3):186-192. doi: 10.4274/tjo.galenos.2021.33581.
To compare reading parameters measured with the Turkish version of the Minnesota Low Vision Reading Test (MNREAD-TR) printed acuity chart and the tablet application version of the same test for both normally sighted and low-vision individuals.
A total of 116 individuals (92 normally sighted and 24 low-vision) were included in the study. All participants were tested with both the print version of the MNREAD-TR chart (method 1) and the tablet application version (method 2). Reading acuity (RA), critical print size (CPS), maximum reading speed (MRS), and reading accessibility index (ACC) were compared statistically.
No statistically significant difference was found in RA and CPS between the two methods for the normally sighted individuals (p=0.083 and p=0.075, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference in RA and ACC between the two methods for the patients with low vision (p=0.159 and p=0.103, respectively). The mean MRS was 233.1±34.7 words per minute (wpm) with method 1 and 169.3±23.4 wpm with method 2 in the normally sighted group (p<0.001) and 93.2±50.2 wpm with method 1 and 68.2±34.7 wpm with method 2 in the low-vision group (p<0.001).
In our study, it was found that the parameters RA and CPS in the normally sighted individuals and RA and ACC in the low vision individuals provided similar results in both forms of the MNREAD. The tablet application method can be preferred to eliminate evaluators' bias of scoring the printed chart. In addition, applications have other advantages such as being faster and more practical and providing automatic analysis of parameters, especially in low-vision rehabilitation.
比较土耳其版明尼苏达州低视力阅读测试（MNREAD-TR）打印视力表和同一测试平板应用程序版本在正常视力和低视力个体中的阅读参数。
本研究共纳入 116 名个体（92 名正常视力和 24 名低视力）。所有参与者均接受 MNREAD-TR 图表打印版本（方法 1）和平板应用程序版本（方法 2）的测试。对阅读视力（RA）、临界打印尺寸（CPS）、最大阅读速度（MRS）和阅读可达性指数（ACC）进行统计学比较。
对于正常视力个体，两种方法的 RA 和 CPS 之间无统计学差异（p=0.083 和 p=0.075）。对于低视力患者，两种方法的 RA 和 ACC 之间无统计学差异（p=0.159 和 p=0.103）。正常视力组中，方法 1 的平均 MRS 为 233.1±34.7 个单词/分钟（wpm），方法 2 为 169.3±23.4 wpm（p<0.001）；低视力组中，方法 1 的平均 MRS 为 93.2±50.2 wpm，方法 2 为 68.2±34.7 wpm（p<0.001）。
在我们的研究中，发现正常视力个体的 RA 和 CPS 以及低视力个体的 RA 和 ACC 参数在 MNREAD 的两种形式中均提供了相似的结果。平板应用程序方法可以优先选择，以消除评估者在评分打印图表时的偏差。此外，该应用程序还具有其他优势，例如更快、更实用，并能自动分析参数，特别是在低视力康复中。
