A computerized method of visual acuity testing: Adaptation of the early treatment of diabetic retinopathy study testing protocol
A computerized method of visual acuity testing: Adaptation of the early treatment of diabetic retinopathy study testing protocol
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/s0002-9394(02)01825-1
复制
发表时间：
2003-02-01
影响因子：
4.2
通讯作者：
Kraker, RT
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Beck, RW;Moke, PS;Kraker, RT
目的：为临床研究开发一种视力检测的计算机化方法，作为糖尿病视网膜病变早期治疗研究（ETDRS）标准检测方案的替代方法，并评估其重测信度以及与标准ETDRS检测的一致性。
设计：重测信度研究。
方法：在三个临床站点对265名患者的研究人群进行多中心设置。使用电子视力检测算法（E - ETDRS）和标准ETDRS方案（S - ETDRS）对每位患者的一只眼睛进行两次视力测量。E - ETDRS检测使用电子视力检测仪（EVA）进行，该仪器利用一个编程的Palm（美国加利福尼亚州圣克拉拉的Palm公司）手持设备与个人计算机和17英寸显示器在3米的检测距离进行通信。
结果：对于E - ETDRS方案，重测信度较高（r = 0.99；重测结果分别有89%和98%在初始测试的0.1 logMAR和0.2 logMAR范围内），与S - ETDRS检测相当（r = 0.99；重测结果分别有87%和98%在初始测试的0.1 logMAR和0.2 logMAR范围内）。E - ETDRS和S - ETDRS评分高度相关（初始测试r = 0.96，重复测试r = 0.97）。基于95%置信区间的估计，从基线水平视力改变0.2 logMAR（10个字母）不太可能与使用E - ETDRS或S - ETDRS视力检测方案的测量变异性有关。
结论：E - ETDRS方案具有较高的重测信度，且与S - ETDRS检测具有良好的一致性。该计算机化方法在电子记录每个检测字母的数据方面优于S - ETDRS检测，从20/12到20/800只需单一检测距离，有可能减少检测时间，并有可能减少与技术人员相关的偏差。（C）2003年，爱思唯尔科学公司版权所有。
PURPOSE: To develop a computerized method of visual acuity testing for clinical research as an alternative to the standard Early Treatment for Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) testing protocol, and to evaluate its test-retest reliability and concordance with standard ETDRS testing.DESIGN: Test-retest reliability study.METHODS: Multicenter setting of a study population of 265 patients at three clinical sites. Visual acuity was measured with both the electronic visual acuity testing algorithm (E-ETDRS) and standard ETDRS protocol (S-ETDRS) twice on one eye of each patient. E-ETDRS testing was conducted using the electronic visual acuity tester (EVA), which utilizes a programmed Palm (Palm, Inc, Santa Clara, California, USA) hand-held device communicating with a personal computer and 17-inch monitor at a test distance of 3 meters.RESULTS: For the E-ETDRS protocol, test-retest reliability was high (r = 0.99; with 89% and 98% of retests within 0.1 logMAR and 0.2 logMAR of initial tests, respectively) and comparable with that of S,ETDRS testing (r = 0.99; with 87% and 98% of retests within 0.1 logMAR and 0.2 logMAR of initial test, respectively). The E-ETDRS and S-ETDRS scores were highly correlated (r = 0.96 for initial tests and r = 0.97 for repeat tests). Based on estimates of 95% confidence intervals, a change in visual acuity of 0.2 logMAR (10 letters) from a baseline level is unlikely to be related to measurement variability using either the E,ETDRS or the S-ETDRS visual acuity testing protocol.CONCLUSIONS: The E-ETDRS protocol has high test-retest reliability and good concordance with S-ETDRS testing. The computerized method has advantages over the S-ETDRS testing in electronically capturing the data for each tested letter, requiring only a single distance for testing from 20/12 to 20/800, potentially reducing testing time, and potentially decreasing technician-related bias. (C) 2003 by Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.