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: The repeatability of best corrected acuity in normal and amblyopic children 4 to 12 years of age.
    Author: Chen SI, Chandna A, Norcia AM, Pettet M, Stone D.
    Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2006 Feb; 47(2):614-9. PubMed ID: 16431958.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: The main purpose of this work was to measure repeatability of line-by-line logMAR (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution) acuity in normal and amblyopic children, while adequately controlling for optical defocus. METHODS: The Lea Symbols Chart is a constant-crowding, equal-logMAR increment chart similar in design to the Early Treatment Diabetes Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] chart. LogMAR visual acuity was tested twice in each eye of 32 amblyopic and 11 normal children. Each test commenced with screening in which one of the three central symbols was chosen for identification starting with the 1.0- or 0.9-logMAR line, progressing to every second line until incorrect identification occurred. Symbol-by-symbol presentation then commenced at the logMAR line containing the last correctly identified symbol. The threshold was recorded as the last logMAR line where four of four or four of five correct responses occurred (i.e., line-by-line scoring). Retesting by the same examiner was identical and occurred within the same session. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in repeatability among normal, fellow, or amblyopic eyes. The difference between test and retest thresholds lay between +/-0.10 logMAR in 93% of eyes. The 95% limits of agreement for the difference was +/-0.18 logMAR. Repeatability in eyes tested first did not differ from that in those tested second in either the normal or amblyopic groups. CONCLUSIONS: In the age-group tested, the line-by-line method of threshold scoring compares favorably with previous reports of both line-by-line and interpolated threshold scoring. There was no clinically meaningful difference in repeatability between the normal and amblyopic children tested.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]