Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

<jats:sec><jats:title>Background</jats:title><jats:p>With the increase in clinical trials testing therapy for retinal disease, there is a need to ensure that outcome measures are both accurate and standardised. The US Food and Drug Administration favours the use of visual acuity measured using ETDRS logMAR charts. The loss of visual field can interfere with visual tracking across the charts, leading to increased variability of measurements. Electronic visual acuity (EVA) presents the optotype on the centre of a screen, thereby removing the tracking element of the task, and may provide a more precise measurement.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>Visual acuity was measured twice using ETDRS charts, EVA automated single letter (E-ETDRS) and EVA single line (EVA-SL) presentation (EMMES). Patients underwent microperimetry (MAIA; Centervue) to determine visual field. We tested 65 patients with rod-cone dystrophies and 41 healthy volunteers.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>Both participant groups read 2–3 letters more on average on the electronic charts compared with ETDRS. Limits of agreement using a modified Bland-Altman analysis account for replicates were wider in eyes with foveal defects (−9 to 18) compared with eyes without foveal defects (−11 to 15). Electronic charts in the presence of foveal defects reduced the range (−11 to 13).</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title><jats:p>EVA may provide more accurate measures of visual acuity than traditional ETDRS charts in patients when the visual field loss encroached on the central vision. Electronic presentation with a single line of letters was the favoured style reported by patients and should be considered in future interventional clinical trials.</jats:p></jats:sec>

Original publication

DOI

10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-315124

Type

Journal article

Journal

British Journal of Ophthalmology

Publisher

BMJ

Publication Date

07/2020

Volume

104

Pages

924 - 931