4.4 Article

Repeatability of visual function measures in age-related macular degeneration

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00417-013-2421-5

Keywords

Age-related macular degeneration; contrast sensitivity; distance visual acuity; reading performance; repeatability

Categories

Funding

  1. Greater Manchester Primary Care Trusts
  2. NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To assess repeatability of visual function measures in patients with early, intermediate or late age-related macular degeneration (AMD) without active neovascular disease in the study eye, but active neovascular AMD in the fellow eye. One hundred subjects from an ongoing trial were screened for this study in which their LogMAR acuity, contrast sensitivity and reading performance were assessed using standardised protocols by trained optometrists. The same measures were repeated one month later and repeatability of the visual functions assessed. Data from 83 subjects satisfied inclusion criteria for analysis. Coefficient of repeatability was 14.9 letters for LogMAR visual acuity , 7.2 letters for Pelli Robson contrast sensitivity, 0.72 for LogMAR reading acuity, 110.4 words/ min for reading speed and 0.67 for LogMAR critical print size. Intraclass correlation coefficients allowed comparison between measures and were found to be 0.96 for LogMAR visual acuity, 0.93 for contrast sensitivity, 0.75 for LogMAR reading acuity, 0.79 for reading speed and 0.74 for LogMAR critical print size. Coefficients of variation were 9.4 %, 10.7 %, 48.4 %, 28.4 % and 31.8 % respectively. We found coefficients of repeatability that concurred with previous studies demonstrating variability of visual functions in patients with AMD. In addition, we found intraclass correlation coefficients to be better with visual acuity and contrast sensitivity than with measures of reading performance.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available