0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Research Letters |

Understanding and Reporting Visual Acuity Measurements in Publications of Clinical Research FREE

Mariana S. Lopes, MD; Shiri Zayit-Soudry, MD; Ala Moshiri, MD, PhD; Susan B. Bressler, MD; Neil M. Bressler, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Universidade Nove de Julho, São Paulo, Brazil (Dr Lopes); and Retina Division, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland (Drs Zayit-Soudry, Moshiri, S. B. Bressler, and N. M. Bressler).


Arch Ophthalmol. 2011;129(9):1228-1229. doi:10.1001/archophthalmol.2011.248.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Visual acuity is an important measure for assessment of visual function. While there are many charts available to test visual acuity,1,2 there is lack of consistency3 in the methods of testing4 and methods of reporting5 visual acuity that may make comparisons difficult between visual outcomes among different published studies. In our opinion, most US ophthalmologists are familiar with the Snellen notation of visual acuity but have limited understanding of how other notations of visual acuity translate into Snellen notation. While some journals such as the American Journal of Ophthalmology provide charts to facilitate this translation, if the chart is not available at the time one is reading an article or listening to a presentation, understanding the level of visual acuity or changes in visual acuity may be limited.

The method of reporting visual acuity in clinical research in retina in 2008 was reviewed systematically to determine how frequently each method of acuity reporting was used among all retina articles published during the 2008 calendar year in 4 ophthalmology journals, including the American Journal of Ophthalmology, Archives of Ophthalmology, Ophthalmology, and Retina. Articles regarding case reports, intraocular tumors, and pediatric retina were excluded.

In addition, a survey to assess understanding of different visual acuity measurements was designed for 5 ophthalmology residents, 4 individuals obtaining advanced specialty training in retina following completion of an ophthalmology residency, and 5 faculty within a retina division at an academic medical center following approval of the study by the medical center's institutional review board and after an oral consent process approved by the institutional review board. The questionnaire was proctored to ensure that the participants provided the answers without reference to other materials. Each participant was asked to give the Snellen equivalent (within 1 line) of various visual acuity measurements that were in non-Snellen formats, including a fraction of 10 notation (eg, 5/10), decimal notation (eg, 0.2), logMAR (eg, 0.1), letter count on an Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart (eg, letter score of 65), and a fraction based on readings at 6 m (eg, 6/60).

Among 356 articles identified in the 4 journals that were in the retina field, 206 reported visual acuity results. Methods used to report the visual acuity among these 206 articles included Snellen equivalent in 175 (85.0%), logMAR in 106 (51.5%), ETDRS letter scores in 67 (32.5%), decimal notation in 13 (6.3%), and metric fractional notation in 1 (0.5%). The 206 publications included 66 (32.0%) using Snellen notation only, 109 (52.9%) using a non-Snellen format and providing a Snellen equivalent, and 31 (15.0%) using non-Snellen notation alone. Among the 140 articles reporting acuity in non-Snellen systems, 83 of the 106 articles (78.3%) reporting logMAR and 54 of the 67 articles (80.6%) reporting an ETDRS letter score also provided a Snellen equivalent. Results were similar among the 172 publications specifying visual acuity as an outcome measure (data not shown).

Fourteen ophthalmologists among 14 volunteers completed the survey. No participants were able to interpret all 5 methods of visual acuity reporting correctly. Two participants (1 resident and 1 attending) demonstrated the ability to interpret 4 of the 5 methods assessed, while most other participants could not correctly interpret logMAR or letter score values within 2 lines of the Snellen equivalent. Ten participants (71.4%) were able to interpret visual acuity in the form of a fraction taken from an ETDRS chart read at 6 m (eg, 6/24). Eight participants (57.1%) correctly converted decimal notation into the appropriate Snellen equivalent. Seven participants (50.0%) correctly converted a fraction of 10 notation (eg, 4/10). Three participants (21.4%) were able to interpret logMAR acuity correctly, and none were able to interpret an ETDRS letter score correctly.

Uniformity in reporting visual acuity measurements in retina peer-reviewed published articles is currently lacking. Almost 1 in 6 articles did not provide Snellen equivalent values when visual acuity was an outcome, but our survey suggests that when an article provides visual acuity as an ETDRS letter score or logMAR, many ophthalmologists, regardless of their level of training, may not understand the Snellen equivalent level of visual acuity.

While the scope of this study is limited (only 14 participants were included in the survey, and all participants were from one academic institution) and the results do not necessarily mean that the individuals would not understand the results of the articles reviewed in their context or would not reference other materials to translate the results of visual acuity outcomes not provided as Snellen equivalents, the results bring into question whether ophthalmologists might understand rapid oral presentations at professional meetings that use letter scores or logMAR without Snellen equivalent information. Based on our findings, ophthalmic journals and organizers of oral presentations of ophthalmic studies might consider requiring approximate Snellen equivalents when visual acuity outcomes are provided using other notations, especially when letter scores or logMAR values are provided.

Correspondence: Dr N. M. Bressler, Wilmer Eye Institute, Maumenee 752, Johns Hopkins Hospital, 600 N Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD 21287-9227 (nmboffice@jhmi.edu).

Author Contributions: All authors had full access to all of the data in the study, and Dr N. M. Bressler takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Funding/Support: This work was supported by unrestricted research gifts to the Retina Division, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, the Julia G. Levy, PhD, Professorship (Dr S. B. Bressler), the Research to Prevent Blindness Senior Scientific Investigator Award (Dr N. M. Bressler), and the James P. Gills Professorship (Dr N. M. Bressler).

Role of the Sponsor: Johns Hopkins University had no role in the design and conduct of the study; in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data; or in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.

Ferris FL III, Kassoff A, Bresnick GH, Bailey I. New visual acuity charts for clinical research.  Am J Ophthalmol. 1982;94(1):91-96
PubMed
Beck RW, Moke PS, Turpin AH,  et al.  A computerized method of visual acuity testing: adaptation of the Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study testing protocol.  Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;135(2):194-205
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ferris FL III, Bailey I. Standardizing the measurement of visual acuity for clinical research studies: guidelines from the Eye Care Technology Forum.  Ophthalmology. 1996;103(1):181-182
PubMed
Williams MA, Moutray TN, Jackson AJ. Uniformity of visual acuity measures in published studies.  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49(10):4321-4327
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Moutray TN, Williams MA, Jackson AJ. Change of visual acuity recording methods in clinical studies across the years.  Ophthalmologica. 2008;222(3):173-177
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Figures

Tables

References

Ferris FL III, Kassoff A, Bresnick GH, Bailey I. New visual acuity charts for clinical research.  Am J Ophthalmol. 1982;94(1):91-96
PubMed
Beck RW, Moke PS, Turpin AH,  et al.  A computerized method of visual acuity testing: adaptation of the Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study testing protocol.  Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;135(2):194-205
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ferris FL III, Bailey I. Standardizing the measurement of visual acuity for clinical research studies: guidelines from the Eye Care Technology Forum.  Ophthalmology. 1996;103(1):181-182
PubMed
Williams MA, Moutray TN, Jackson AJ. Uniformity of visual acuity measures in published studies.  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49(10):4321-4327
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Moutray TN, Williams MA, Jackson AJ. Change of visual acuity recording methods in clinical studies across the years.  Ophthalmologica. 2008;222(3):173-177
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 1

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
JAMAevidence.com

The Rational Clinical Examination
Not all floaters and/or flashes represent ocular problems, and nonocular causes can usually be...

The Rational Clinical Examination EDUCATION GUIDES
Falls, Older Adults