Comparison of optotypes of Amsterdam Picture Chart with those of Tumbling-E, LEA Symbols, ETDRS, and Landolt-C in non-amblyopic and amblyopic patients

Engin, Ö.; Despriet, Dominique; Meulen-Schot, H.M. van der; Romers, Annemarie; Slot, Xanne; Sang, Martha Tjon Fo; Fronius, Maria; Kelderman, Henk; Simonsz, Huib

doi:10.1007/s00417-014-2763-7

Cited by 13 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As the quality of the APK as a psychophysical measurement was found to be low in a previous study by Engin et al. (), we studied the VA measurement at the age of 36 months in a large birth‐cohort study and found high rates of measurements with insufficient VA and of failed measurements.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

High rate of failed visual‐acuity measurements with the Amsterdam Picture Chart in screening at the age of 36 months

Telleman

Sloot

Benjamins

et al. 2018

Acta Ophthalmologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose In the Netherlands, youth health care physicians and nurses screen all children for general health disorders at Child Health Care Centers. As part of this, the eyes are screened seven times, with the first visual acuity (VA) measurement at 36 months with the Amsterdam Picture Chart (APK). The suitability of the APK has been questioned. Methods Children born between July 2011 and June 2012 born in the provinces Drenthe, Gelderland and Flevoland and invited for screening at 36 months were eligible. Parents were sent the APK picture optotypes to practise with their children in advance. Data were collected from electronic screening records. The Dutch vision screening guideline prescribes that children with VA <5/6, or one line interocular difference (not logMAR, however) should be retested or referred. Results Of 10 809 eligible children, 1546 did not attend and 602 attended but had no VA measurement at age 36 months, 247 of these were under orthoptic treatment. Of the 8448 children examined, VA was sufficient in 5663 (67.0%) and insufficient in 1312 (15.5%). In 1400 (16.6%), the measurement of VA itself failed. In 73 (0.9%), data were missing. Of the 216 children with 2 failed VA measurements, 150 (69%) were not referred, and measurement of VA was deferred to the next general screening examination at 45 months. Conclusion Although most parents had practised the APK picture optotypes at home with their children, the rate of failed APK measurements plus the measurements with insufficient VA was 32.1% at 36 months. Similar rates have previously been reported for Lea Symbols and HOTV, permitting the conclusion that measurement of VA at the age of 36 months cannot be recommended as a screening test in the general population.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…These eleven pictures were found recently to have different thresholds (Engin et al. ). In contrast with Landolt‐C and Snellen's E‐optotypes, the width of the lines of the APK optotype is not one‐fifth, but one‐tenth of the size of the optotype.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

High rate of failed visual‐acuity measurements with the Amsterdam Picture Chart in screening at the age of 36 months

Telleman

Sloot

Benjamins

et al. 2018

Acta Ophthalmologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… 20 Based on a group of adults between 17 and 31 years old, another study found that LEA Symbols showed mean VA values that were weaker than Tumbling E, with about a value of 0.042 logMAR, which is approximately two symbols. 16 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 28 As a result, data from different charts are not directly comparable and this should be taken into account when comparing charts. 3 , 16 , 29 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement of visual acuity with a digital eye chart: optotypes, presentation modalities and repeatability

Dall’Orto

Facchin

Bellatorre

et al. 2021

Journal of Optometry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Digital or computerised eye charts are becoming standard in the examination of visual acuity. Each instrument allows the selection of different optotypes, presentation modalities, and crowding. The aim of this study was to examine the differences in visual acuity (VA) measurement using a digital eye chart, comparing different optotypes and procedures, together with an evaluation of the repeatability of the measurement. Methods Two groups of 52 participants aged between 18 and 31 years participated in the study. In the first experiment, VA thresholds were measured using LEA Symbols, Tumbling E, and Landolt Rings in monocular and binocular conditions using single line presentation and QUEST presentation. In the second experiment, we have compared all modalities of presentation together with a paper eye-chart and test the repeatability. Results The results showed that thresholds for LEA Symbols are low. The modality of presentation affects these thresholds. For Landolt Rings and Tumbling E, the QUEST procedure gave significantly better thresholds than line presentation, while this difference was absent for LEA Symbols. In comparing all modalities of presentation, single letter and line presentation showed similar values, slightly better than block presentation. Paper eye-charts showed better values of VA. Repeatability and agreement were good for all presentations, but best for QUEST. Conclusions The QUEST modality of presentation provides a better threshold than line presentation except for LEA Symbols. Examiners using digital eye charts must take into account that not all modalities of presentation and optotypes are equivalent and give different VA thresholds. Specific thresholds need to be used for each optotype and presentation modality.

show abstract

“…Out of this, 90% of the visually impaired live in low-income settings 1 . In the community setting, healthcare workers usually perform visual acuity testing with a variety of tools such as Snellen chart 2 and Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) tumbling 'E' chart 3 , which have been validated 4,5 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

REST – An Innovative Rapid Eye Screening Test

Jan-Bond¹,

Teh²,

Hong-Kee³

et al. 2015

JournalMTM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To determine the agreement and correlation of visual acuity between Rapid Eye Screening Test (REST) app and Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) tumbling 'E' chart. Methods: A visual acuity tool was designed for Android and iOS users based on ETDRS. A pilot study was conducted involving 101 subjects. Visual acuity of each subject was tested using ETDRS chart and crossover to REST at 3 meters or vice versa. Results: Mean visual acuity using ETDRS was 0.086 9 0.194 for right eye (RE) and 0.085 9 0.196 for left eye (LE) while REST measurement was 0.091 9 0.182 for RE and 0.098 9 0.203 for LE. There was significant and strong direct correlation between visual acuity using ETDRS and REST in both eyes (RE: r 0 0.829; p B 0.001, LE: r 0 0.871; p B 0.001). The 95% limits of agreement between the two charts was 90.11 LogMAR for right eye and 90.10 LogMAR for left eye. Time taken for REST was significantly shorter than ETDRS (p B 0.001). Conclusion: REST is accurate and time-saving, thus potentially ideal for mass screening in remote area.

show abstract

Comparison of optotypes of Amsterdam Picture Chart with those of Tumbling-E, LEA Symbols, ETDRS, and Landolt-C in non-amblyopic and amblyopic patients

Cited by 13 publications

References 9 publications

High rate of failed visual‐acuity measurements with the Amsterdam Picture Chart in screening at the age of 36 months

High rate of failed visual‐acuity measurements with the Amsterdam Picture Chart in screening at the age of 36 months

Measurement of visual acuity with a digital eye chart: optotypes, presentation modalities and repeatability

REST – An Innovative Rapid Eye Screening Test

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About