儿童与成人Lea符号与Patti图视觉灵敏度的一致性

IF 2.2 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY Journal of Optometry Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI:10.1016/j.optom.2023.01.004
Arjun Sapkota , Sanjeeta Sitaula , Gauri Shankar Shrestha , Niraj Dev Joshi , Bipin Koirala , Nabin Paudel
{"title":"儿童与成人Lea符号与Patti图视觉灵敏度的一致性","authors":"Arjun Sapkota ,&nbsp;Sanjeeta Sitaula ,&nbsp;Gauri Shankar Shrestha ,&nbsp;Niraj Dev Joshi ,&nbsp;Bipin Koirala ,&nbsp;Nabin Paudel","doi":"10.1016/j.optom.2023.01.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Patti Pics (PP) and Lea Symbols (LS) are commonly used by eye care practitioners worldwide. Although the relationship between the two tests is fairly well understood, the availability of different chart designs (single optotypes, multiple optotypes, multiple optotypes with crowding box) merits futher understanding. The purpose of this study is to explore the agreement between the acuity measures obtained with Patti Pics and Lea Symbols in children and adults and compare their performance with the Sloan Letter (SL) chart in adults.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Monocular visual acuity was obtained from ninety-three 3 to 5-year-old children using Patti Pics and Lea Symbols. Acuities were also obtained from 113 adults using the same tests under identical conditions. Acuity results obtained with the pediatric tests were compared with the gold-standard Sloan Letter chart in adults. The Bland-Altman method was implemented to compare the level of agreement between tests.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Patti Pics yielded worse visual acuity than the Lea Symbols by approximately half a logMAR line in both children (mean difference: -0.07 ± 0.07 logMAR, <em>p</em> &lt;0.01) and adults (Mean difference: -0.05 ± 0.06 logMAR, <em>p</em> &lt;0.01). The 95% limits of agreement between Lea Symbol acuity and Patti pics acuity in children was ± 0.14 logMAR. Mean difference between the Sloan Letter chart and Lea Symbols acuity was not statistically significant (<em>p</em> = 0.08) in adults but the difference was statistically significant between PP and SL (<em>p</em>&lt;0.001). The 95% limits of agreement between LS and SL and between PP and SL was ± 0.19 logMAR and ± 0.22 logMAR, respectively.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Patti Pics consistently underestimated visual acuity as compared to Lea Symbols both in children and adults although the differences were not clinically significant. The LS and PP did not yield clinically significant differences in acuities when compared with Sloan letters in adults.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46407,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Optometry","volume":"16 3","pages":"Pages 229-235"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/46/21/main.PMC10323177.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Agreement between Lea Symbols and Patti Pics visual acuity in children and adults\",\"authors\":\"Arjun Sapkota ,&nbsp;Sanjeeta Sitaula ,&nbsp;Gauri Shankar Shrestha ,&nbsp;Niraj Dev Joshi ,&nbsp;Bipin Koirala ,&nbsp;Nabin Paudel\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.optom.2023.01.004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Patti Pics (PP) and Lea Symbols (LS) are commonly used by eye care practitioners worldwide. Although the relationship between the two tests is fairly well understood, the availability of different chart designs (single optotypes, multiple optotypes, multiple optotypes with crowding box) merits futher understanding. The purpose of this study is to explore the agreement between the acuity measures obtained with Patti Pics and Lea Symbols in children and adults and compare their performance with the Sloan Letter (SL) chart in adults.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Monocular visual acuity was obtained from ninety-three 3 to 5-year-old children using Patti Pics and Lea Symbols. Acuities were also obtained from 113 adults using the same tests under identical conditions. Acuity results obtained with the pediatric tests were compared with the gold-standard Sloan Letter chart in adults. The Bland-Altman method was implemented to compare the level of agreement between tests.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Patti Pics yielded worse visual acuity than the Lea Symbols by approximately half a logMAR line in both children (mean difference: -0.07 ± 0.07 logMAR, <em>p</em> &lt;0.01) and adults (Mean difference: -0.05 ± 0.06 logMAR, <em>p</em> &lt;0.01). The 95% limits of agreement between Lea Symbol acuity and Patti pics acuity in children was ± 0.14 logMAR. Mean difference between the Sloan Letter chart and Lea Symbols acuity was not statistically significant (<em>p</em> = 0.08) in adults but the difference was statistically significant between PP and SL (<em>p</em>&lt;0.001). The 95% limits of agreement between LS and SL and between PP and SL was ± 0.19 logMAR and ± 0.22 logMAR, respectively.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Patti Pics consistently underestimated visual acuity as compared to Lea Symbols both in children and adults although the differences were not clinically significant. The LS and PP did not yield clinically significant differences in acuities when compared with Sloan letters in adults.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46407,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Optometry\",\"volume\":\"16 3\",\"pages\":\"Pages 229-235\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/46/21/main.PMC10323177.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Optometry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1888429623000031\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Optometry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1888429623000031","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景Patti Pics(PP)和Lea Symbols(LS)是世界各地眼科护理从业者常用的符号。尽管这两种测试之间的关系已经得到了很好的理解,但不同图表设计(单视标、多视标、带拥挤盒的多视标)的可用性值得进一步理解。本研究的目的是探索儿童和成人使用Patti Pics和Lea Symbols获得的视力测量之间的一致性,并将其表现与成人的Sloan Letter(SL)图进行比较。方法采用Patti Pics和Lea Symbols对93名3~5岁儿童进行单目视力测量。在相同的条件下使用相同的测试也从113名成年人身上获得了敏锐度。将儿童测试的敏锐度结果与成人的金标准斯隆字母表进行比较。Bland-Altman方法用于比较测试之间的一致性水平。结果Patti Pics在儿童(平均差异:-0.07±0.07 logMAR,p<0.01)和成人(平均差异为-0.05±0.06 log MAR,p<0.01)中的视力均比Lea Symbol差约半logMAR线。成人的Sloan Letter图和Lea Symbols视力之间的平均差异没有统计学意义(p=0.08),但PP和SL之间的差异具有统计学意义(p<0.001)。LS和SL之间以及PP和SL的95%一致性极限分别为±0.19 logMAR和±0.22 logMAR。结论Patti Pics在儿童和成人中始终低估了与Lea Symbols相比的视力,尽管差异在临床上并不显著。与成人的斯隆字母相比,LS和PP在敏锐性方面没有产生临床显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Agreement between Lea Symbols and Patti Pics visual acuity in children and adults

Background

Patti Pics (PP) and Lea Symbols (LS) are commonly used by eye care practitioners worldwide. Although the relationship between the two tests is fairly well understood, the availability of different chart designs (single optotypes, multiple optotypes, multiple optotypes with crowding box) merits futher understanding. The purpose of this study is to explore the agreement between the acuity measures obtained with Patti Pics and Lea Symbols in children and adults and compare their performance with the Sloan Letter (SL) chart in adults.

Methods

Monocular visual acuity was obtained from ninety-three 3 to 5-year-old children using Patti Pics and Lea Symbols. Acuities were also obtained from 113 adults using the same tests under identical conditions. Acuity results obtained with the pediatric tests were compared with the gold-standard Sloan Letter chart in adults. The Bland-Altman method was implemented to compare the level of agreement between tests.

Results

Patti Pics yielded worse visual acuity than the Lea Symbols by approximately half a logMAR line in both children (mean difference: -0.07 ± 0.07 logMAR, p <0.01) and adults (Mean difference: -0.05 ± 0.06 logMAR, p <0.01). The 95% limits of agreement between Lea Symbol acuity and Patti pics acuity in children was ± 0.14 logMAR. Mean difference between the Sloan Letter chart and Lea Symbols acuity was not statistically significant (p = 0.08) in adults but the difference was statistically significant between PP and SL (p<0.001). The 95% limits of agreement between LS and SL and between PP and SL was ± 0.19 logMAR and ± 0.22 logMAR, respectively.

Conclusion

Patti Pics consistently underestimated visual acuity as compared to Lea Symbols both in children and adults although the differences were not clinically significant. The LS and PP did not yield clinically significant differences in acuities when compared with Sloan letters in adults.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Optometry
Journal of Optometry OPHTHALMOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
60
审稿时长
66 days
期刊最新文献
Blue light stimulation of the optic nerve head reduces melatonin levels in rabbit posterior segment Effect of a vergence-accommodation conflict induced during a 30-minute Virtual Reality game on vergence-accommodation parameters and related symptoms Visual performance of a new trifocal intraocular lens design evaluated with a clinical adaptative optics visual simulator Analysis of patient referrals from primary care to ophthalmology. The role of the optometrist Corneal higher-order aberrations in different types of irregular cornea
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1