Evaluating a new logMAR chart designed to improve visual acuity assessment in population-based surveys.

AIMS: This study aimed to evaluate a new chart designed to improve the collection of visual acuity data in population-based surveys. The Reduced logMAR E chart (RLME) employs three letters per line, 'tumbling E' optotypes, and conforms to accepted contemporary design principles. METHODS: The performance of the chart was assessed within a population-based glaucoma survey in Thailand. Performance indices were test-retest variability (TRV) and agreement with acuity data measured using the ETDRS logMAR chart which acted as the 'gold standard'. RESULTS: The 95% confidence limits for TRV of RLME acuity data were +/-0.15 logMAR. This figure is consistent with published data on the TRV of acuities measured using five-letter-per-line logMAR charts. The mean difference between RLME and ETDRS acuity data was 0.00 logMAR (95% confidence intervals of +/-0.05 logMAR) indicating that RLME acuities agreed well with those of the ETDRS chart. The chart and its method of use was readily accepted by the local ancillary staff who required only minimal training before acuity measurement could be delegated to them. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated that the RLME chart is capable of accurate and repeatable acuity measurements. Certain aspects of the design of the RLME chart may be particularly pertinent to the measurement of vision in population-based surveys

Validation of printed and computerised crowded Kay picture logMAR tests against gold standard ETDRS acuity test chart measurements in adult and amblyopic paediatric subjects

AIMS: The impression exists that picture acuity scores may overestimate function when subjects are switched to letter charts. This has not been systematically investigated. The aims of this study were to validate both printed crowded Kay picture (pCKP) and computerised CKP (cCKP) logMAR test acuity measurements against gold standard ETDRS letter chart scores. METHODS: A total of 30 adult subjects with various ophthalmic disease and 40 amblyopic children underwent test and re-test visual acuity measurements using the ETDRS chart, the pCKP logMAR test, and the cCKP acuity scores taken, using the COMPlog visual acuity measurement system. Bland and Altman methods were employed. RESULTS: Computerised and printed Kay picture acuity scores agreed well. Both Kay picture test measurements were systematically biased when compared with ETDRS chart measurements. No significant proportional bias was found. The test retest variability (TRV) of all three tests was found to be similar between ±0.14 and 0.16 logMAR in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: All three tests were similarly replicable and computerised Kay pictures appear to be a valid alternative to hard copy Kay pictures. Kay picture acuity measurements were systematically biased when compared with the gold standard ETDRS. Measurement error means that differences of up to 0.16 logMAR may be observed in clinically stable patients when re-measured using the same technique. A combination of TRV and systematic bias can however lead to differences of up to 0.40 logMAR in stable amblyopic patients when switched from CKPs to ETDRS chart acuity measurements