Suppr超能文献

[使用阶梯测量和最大似然分析对提高可重复性的DIN兼容视力评估]

[DIN-compatible vision assessment of increased reproducibility using staircase measurement and maximum likelihood analysis].

作者信息

Weigmann U, Petersen J

机构信息

Universitäts-Augenklinik Göttingen.

出版信息

Ophthalmologe. 1996 Aug;93(4):328-32.

PMID:8963126
Abstract

PROBLEM

Visual acuity determination according to DIN 58,220 does not make full use of the information received about the patient, in contrast to the staircase method. Thus, testing the same number of optotypes, the staircase method should yield more reproducible acuity results. On the other hand, the staircase method gives systematically higher acuity values because it converges on the 48% point of the psychometric function (for Landolt rings in eight positions) and not on the 65% probability, as DIN 58,220 with criterion 3/5 does. This bias can be avoided by means of a modified evaluation. Using the staircase data we performed a maximum likelihood estimate of the psychometric function as a whole and computed the acuity value for 65% probability of correct answers.

METHOD

We determined monocular visual acuity in 102 persons with widely differing visual performance. Each subject underwent four tests in random order, two according to DIN 58,220 and two using the modified staircase method (Landolt rings in eight positions scaled by a factor 1.26; PC monitor with 1024 x 768 pixels; distance 4.5 m). Each test was performed with 25 optotypes.

RESULTS

The two procedures provide the same mean visual acuity values (difference less than 0.02 acuity steps). The test-retest results match in 30.4% of DIN repetitions but in 50% of the staircases. The standard deviation of the test-retest difference is 1.41 (DIN) and 1.06 (modified staircase) acuity steps. Thus the standard deviation of the single test is 1.0 (DIN) and 0.75 (modified staircase) acuity steps.

SUMMARY

The new method provides visual acuity values identical to DIN 58,220 but is superior with respect to reproducibility.

摘要

问题

与阶梯法相比,根据DIN 58,220测定视力并未充分利用所获取的患者信息。因此,在测试相同数量的视标时,阶梯法应能得出更具可重复性的视力结果。另一方面,阶梯法得出的视力值系统性地更高,因为它收敛于心理测量函数的48%点(对于八个位置的兰道环),而不像DIN 58,220的标准3/5那样收敛于65%概率。这种偏差可通过改进评估来避免。利用阶梯法数据,我们对整个心理测量函数进行了最大似然估计,并计算了正确答案概率为65%时的视力值。

方法

我们对102名视力表现差异很大的人进行了单眼视力测定。每个受试者按随机顺序接受四项测试,两项根据DIN 58,220进行,两项使用改进的阶梯法(八个位置的兰道环按1.26的系数缩放;1024×768像素的电脑显示器;距离4.5米)。每项测试使用25个视标。

结果

两种方法得出的平均视力值相同(差异小于0.02个视力阶梯)。重测结果在DIN重复测试中有30.4%相符,而在阶梯法测试中有50%相符。重测差异的标准差为1.41(DIN法)和1.06(改进阶梯法)个视力阶梯。因此,单次测试的标准差为1.0(DIN法)和0.75(改进阶梯法)个视力阶梯。

总结

新方法得出与DIN 58,220相同的视力值,但在可重复性方面更优。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验