Chen David Ziyou, Tham Yih-Chung, Shen Liang, Chee Soon-Phaik
Department of Ophthalmology, National University Hospital, Singapore.
Centre for Innovation and Precision Eye Health, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Ophthalmol Sci. 2025 Apr 8;5(5):100790. doi: 10.1016/j.xops.2025.100790. eCollection 2025 Sep-Oct.
To develop a conversion table and compare the cross-validity of 3 types of widely utilized near vision charts: the ETDRS near chart, the N-notation chart, and the Rosenbaum chart.
A prospective, cross-sectional, comparative validation study.
Aged ≥40 years.
A conversion table for the 3 types of near charts was created using objective character sizing based on vertical height captured using a surgical microscope with a 10× magnification. Eligible presbyopic patients had their near vision tested sequentially with 3 near charts in a randomized order.
Pearson correlation coefficient () for the relationship among the near visual acuity charts. The consistency between the different charts was evaluated by Bland-Altman diagrams.
A total of 204 participants (129 women, 63.2%) were recruited for the study (mean age, 58.9 ± 7.1 years). For correlation, ranged from 0.596 to 0.836 (all < 0.001). The Rosenbaum chart had the smallest range of difference against the ETDRS chart (standard deviation [SD] = 0.12), followed by the N-notation chart (SD = 0.15). Most of the converted logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) values from the N-notation and Rosenbaum charts were between 0.0 and 0.1 higher than the ETDRS logMAR equivalent (range: 0.07-0.11), with a tendency for both the N-notation and Rosenbaum charts to overestimate logMAR at more positive values.
We have developed a conversion table for 3 types of commonly used near vision charts. When compared with the ETDRS near chart, the Rosenbaum chart had a smaller range of difference than the N-notation chart. Both the Rosenbaum and N-notation charts tended to underestimate near vision at worse vision.
The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.
制定一个换算表,并比较3种广泛使用的近视力表的交叉效度:糖尿病视网膜病变早期治疗研究(ETDRS)近视力表、N视力记录法视力表和罗森鲍姆视力表。
一项前瞻性、横断面、比较性验证研究。
年龄≥40岁。
使用手术显微镜(放大倍数为10倍)获取垂直高度,基于客观字符大小为3种近视力表创建一个换算表。符合条件的老花眼患者按照随机顺序依次使用3种近视力表进行近视力测试。
近视力表之间关系的皮尔逊相关系数()。通过布兰德-奥特曼图评估不同视力表之间的一致性。
共招募了204名参与者(129名女性,占63.2%)参与本研究(平均年龄58.9±7.1岁)。相关性方面,范围为0.596至0.836(均<0.001)。罗森鲍姆视力表与ETDRS视力表相比差异范围最小(标准差[SD]=0.12),其次是N视力记录法视力表(SD=0.15)。N视力记录法视力表和罗森鲍姆视力表换算后的最小分辨角对数(logMAR)值大多比ETDRS视力表对应的logMAR值高0.0至0.1(范围:0.07 - 0.11),N视力记录法视力表和罗森鲍姆视力表在正值越大时都有高估logMAR的趋势。
我们为3种常用的近视力表制定了一个换算表。与ETDRS近视力表相比,罗森鲍姆视力表的差异范围比N视力记录法视力表小。罗森鲍姆视力表和N视力记录法视力表在视力较差时都倾向于低估近视力。
作者对本文讨论的任何材料均无所有权或商业利益。