Suppr超能文献

HOTV视标与Lea符号的比较:一项系统评价与荟萃分析

Comparison of HOTV optotypes and Lea Symbols: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

作者信息

Van Swol Elizabeth G, Gupta Annika, Nguyen Shaun A, Wilson M Edward

机构信息

College of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

出版信息

J AAPOS. 2024 Feb;28(1):103815. doi: 10.1016/j.jaapos.2023.11.017. Epub 2024 Jan 16.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To report the findings of our systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the completion time and testing time of visual acuity testing using Lea Symbols or HOTV optotypes.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, SCOPUS, and CINAHL was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

The completion rate for HOTV optotypes and Lea Symbols visual acuity testing was reported for 7,948 patients (average age, 3.59 years; age range, 2-17; 49.96% females). The 3-year-olds' completion rate of HOTV was 74.09% (47.93%-93.29%), compared with a Lea Symbols completion rate of 77.80% (53.93%-94.57%). The 4-year-olds' completion rate was 88.20% (63.48%-99.73%) for HOTV and 90.118% (67.42%-99.90%) for Lea Symbols. In 3-year-olds, the mean testing time was 118.33 ± 6.54 seconds for HOTV and 120.33 ± 6.53 seconds for Lea Symbols (P < 0.0001). The difference in testing times in the 4-year-old age group was also statistically significant (86.98 ± 6.12 seconds for HOTV and 94.32 ± 6.57 seconds for Lea symbols) (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

There was a statistically significant difference in the testing times between the HOTV optotypes and Lea Symbols in both the 3- and 4-year-old age groups; however, the difference of 2-7 seconds on average is unlikely to be clinically significant. Testing speed and completion rate improve with age for both tests.

摘要

目的

报告我们的系统评价和荟萃分析结果,比较使用利雅视力表符号(Lea Symbols)或HOTV视标进行视力测试的完成时间和测试时间。

方法

根据PRISMA指南对PubMed、SCOPUS和CINAHL进行系统检索。

结果

报告了7948例患者(平均年龄3.59岁;年龄范围2 - 17岁;女性占49.96%)使用HOTV视标和利雅视力表符号进行视力测试的完成率。3岁儿童使用HOTV视标的完成率为74.09%(47.93% - 93.29%),而使用利雅视力表符号的完成率为77.80%(53.93% - 94.57%)。4岁儿童使用HOTV视标的完成率为88.20%(63.48% - 99.73%),使用利雅视力表符号的完成率为90.118%(67.42% - 99.90%)。在3岁儿童中,HOTV视标的平均测试时间为118.33 ± 6.54秒,利雅视力表符号的平均测试时间为120.33 ± 6.53秒(P < 0.0001)。4岁年龄组的测试时间差异也具有统计学意义(HOTV视标为86.98 ± 6.12秒,利雅视力表符号为94.32 ± 6.57秒)(P < 0.0001)。

结论

在3岁和4岁年龄组中,HOTV视标和利雅视力表符号的测试时间存在统计学显著差异;然而,平均2 - 7秒的差异在临床上不太可能具有显著意义。两种测试的测试速度和完成率均随年龄增长而提高。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验