Journal of AAPOS : the official publication of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus · 2009
A comparison of Lea Symbol vs ETDRS letter distance visual acuity in a population of young children with a high prevalence of astigmatism.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dobson Velma, Clifford-Donaldson Candice E, Miller Joseph M, Garvey Katherine A, Harvey Erin M
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare visual acuity results obtained by use of the Lea Symbols chart with results obtained with Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) charts in young children who are members of a population with a high prevalence of astigmatism.
METHODS: Subjects were 438 children ages 5 through 7 years who were enrolled in kindergarten or first grade on the Tohono O'odham Reservation: 241 (55%) had astigmatism >or=1.00 D in one or both eyes (range, 0.00-6.75 D). While wearing best correction, each child had right eye visual acuity tested with the 62 cm by 65 cm Lea Symbols chart at 3 m and with the 62 cm by 65 cm ETDRS chart at 4 m. Visual acuity was scored as the smallest optotype size at which the child correctly identified 3 of a maximum of 5 optotypes. ETDRS visual acuity also was scored based on the total number of letters that the child correctly identified.
RESULTS: Correlation between Lea Symbols visual acuity and ETDRS visual acuity was 0.78 (p < 0.001). Mean Lea Symbols visual acuity was one-half line (0.04-0.06 logMAR) better than mean ETDRS visual acuity (p < 0.001). The difference between Lea Symbols and ETDRS visual acuity was not correlated with the mean of the Lea Symbols and ETDRS visual acuity scores, which ranged from -0.3 logMAR (20/10) to 0.74 logMAR (20/110).
CONCLUSIONS: In this population of young children, in whom the primary source of reduced visual acuity is astigmatism-related amblyopia, the Lea Symbols chart produced visual acuity scores that were about 0.5 line better than visual acuity scores obtained with ETDRS charts.
METHODS: Subjects were 438 children ages 5 through 7 years who were enrolled in kindergarten or first grade on the Tohono O'odham Reservation: 241 (55%) had astigmatism >or=1.00 D in one or both eyes (range, 0.00-6.75 D). While wearing best correction, each child had right eye visual acuity tested with the 62 cm by 65 cm Lea Symbols chart at 3 m and with the 62 cm by 65 cm ETDRS chart at 4 m. Visual acuity was scored as the smallest optotype size at which the child correctly identified 3 of a maximum of 5 optotypes. ETDRS visual acuity also was scored based on the total number of letters that the child correctly identified.
RESULTS: Correlation between Lea Symbols visual acuity and ETDRS visual acuity was 0.78 (p < 0.001). Mean Lea Symbols visual acuity was one-half line (0.04-0.06 logMAR) better than mean ETDRS visual acuity (p < 0.001). The difference between Lea Symbols and ETDRS visual acuity was not correlated with the mean of the Lea Symbols and ETDRS visual acuity scores, which ranged from -0.3 logMAR (20/10) to 0.74 logMAR (20/110).
CONCLUSIONS: In this population of young children, in whom the primary source of reduced visual acuity is astigmatism-related amblyopia, the Lea Symbols chart produced visual acuity scores that were about 0.5 line better than visual acuity scores obtained with ETDRS charts.