Objective
We evaluated the Runge card, a near-vision eye chart designed for ease of use, by testing agreement in visual acuity results between it and the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) visual acuity chart. As a clinical reference point, we compared the Runge card and an electronic Snellen chart with respect to agreement with ETDRS results.
Methods
Participants consisted of adult eye clinic patient volunteers who underwent a protocol refraction, followed by testing with a Runge card, ETDRS chart, and Snellen chart. Mean logMAR visual acuities were calculated for each method. Agreement levels among the tests were assessed for the group overall and for subjects with good (ETDRS logMAR < 0.6; better than 20/80 Snellen equivalent) and poor (logMAR ≥ 0.6) acuity.
Results
One hundred and thirty-eight participants completed testing. The mean ( ± standard deviation) logMAR visual acuities (Snellen equivalent) with Runge, ETDRS, and Snellen, respectively, were 0.66 ± 0.50 (20/91,
n
= 138), 0.59 ± 0.51 (20/78,
n
= 138), and 0.67 ± 0.62 (20/94,
n
= 137). Runge testing agreed similarly with ETDRS and Snellen testing, with CCC 0.92 between Runge and ETDRS, and 0.87 between Runge and Snellen (
p
= 0.14). Runge agreed better with ETDRS than Snellen agreed with ETDRS in participants with poor acuity (CCC = 0.79 vs. 0.63, respectively,
p
= 0.001) but not in those with good acuity (CCC = 0.70 vs. 0.87, respectively,
p
= 0.005).
Conclusion
Visual acuity measurements with the Runge near card agreed with measurements from the ETDRS to approximately the same degree as did the Snellen chart, suggesting potential utility of the Runge near card, particularly given its user-friendly characteristics and ease of use.