Change of Visual Acuity Recording Methods in Clinical Studies across the Years

Vol. 222, No. 3, 2008

Free Abstract Article (Fulltext) Article (PDF 117 KB)

Original Paper

Change of Visual Acuity Recording Methods in Clinical Studies across the Years
Tanya Natasha Moutray^a, Michael Andrew Williams^{a, b}, A.J. Jackson^{a, b}

^aRoyal Victoria Hospital and
^bQueen's University of Belfast, Belfast, UK

Address of Corresponding Author

Ophthalmologica 2008;222:173-177 (DOI: 10.1159/000126080)

Key Words

Visual acuity
Clinical studies
Vision, methodology

Abstract

Purpose: To report any differences in the visual acuity (VA) recording method used in peer-reviewed ophthalmology clinical studies over the past decade. Methods: We reviewed the method of assessing and reporting VA in 160 clinical studies from 2 UK and 2 US peer-reviewed journals, published in 1994 and 2004. Results: The method used to assess VA was specified in 62.5% of UK-published and 60% of US-published papers. In the results sections of the UK publications the VA measurements presented were Snellen acuity (n = 58), logMAR acuity (n = 20) and symbol acuity (n = 1). Similarly in the US publications the VA was recorded in the results section using Snellen acuity (n = 60) and logMAR acuity (n = 14). Overall 10% of the authors appeared to convert Snellen acuity measurements to logMAR format. Five studies (3%) chose to express Snellen-type acuities in decimal form, a method which can easily lead to confusion given the increased use of logMAR scoring systems. Conclusion: The authors recommend that to ensure comparable visual results between studies and different study populations it would be useful if clinical scientists worked to standardized VA testing protocols and reported results in a manner consistent with the way in which they are measured.

Author Contacts

Dr. Tanya Natasha Moutray
Department of Ophthalmology, Mr Buchanan's secretary
Eye and Ear Clinic, Royal Victoria Hospital
Belfast BT12 6BA (UK)
Tel. +44 289 063 2444, Fax +44 289 033 0744, E-Mail tanya.moutray@btopenworld.com

Article Information

Received: January 5, 2007
Accepted after revision: February 22, 2007
Published online: May 22, 2008
Number of Print Pages : 5
Number of Figures : 0, Number of Tables : 3, Number of References : 11

Medline Abstract (ID 18497526)

Download Citation

For non-native English speakers and international authors who would like assistance with their writing before submission, we suggest American Journal Experts for their scientific editing service.