These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of the amblyopia treatment study HOTV and electronic-early treatment of diabetic retinopathy study visual acuity protocols in children aged 5 to 12 years.
    Author: Rice ML, Leske DA, Holmes JM.
    Journal: Am J Ophthalmol; 2004 Feb; 137(2):278-82. PubMed ID: 14962417.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To compare two established visual acuity protocols: the Amblyopia Treatment Study HOTV (ATS HOTV) visual acuity protocol and the Electronic-Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (E-ETDRS) protocol, in children aged 5 to 12 years. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: Crowded HOTV optotypes and crowded ETDRS optotypes were presented to 236 consecutive children aged 5 to 12 years using an electronic visual acuity tester (Palm handheld, personal computer, and monitor). Twenty-three percent of the children were classified as amblyopic, 35% as having uncorrected refractive error, 36% as normal, and 6% as other. Visual acuity test results were converted to logarithm of minimal angle of resolution (logMAR) units for analysis. RESULTS: In developmentally normal children (n = 230), testability was 100% for HOTV in 5- to 12-year-olds and 100% for E-ETDRS in 7- to 12-year-olds. The E-ETDRS testing could be completed in 52% of 5-year-olds and in 87% of 6-year-olds. Visual acuity performance was better when measured by HOTV compared with E-ETDRS (median difference 0.06 logMAR [three letters on a chart with five letters/line], P =.0001), and the difference was found in normal eyes, eyes with refractive error, and amblyopic eyes. CONCLUSIONS: The ATS HOTV protocol yields slightly better visual acuity performance compared with E-ETDRS in 5- to 12-year-olds, but on average by less than a logMAR level. This systematic difference is important when a physician changes testing modality as a child matures and should be considered when interpreting the results of recent and ongoing clinical trials in amblyopia.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]