Comparison of Snellen Visual Acuity Measurements in Retinal Clinical Practice to Electronic ETDRS Protocol Visual Acuity Assessment
Ophthalmology Volume 130, Number 5, May 2023
這項研究關注了臨床和protocol視力測量之間的潛在差異，研究對象是參與了DRCR Protocols AC、AE 和 W 的參與者。這些研究對象的眼睛在臨床和protocol訪問之間沒有接受過治療。研究發現，即使進行了屈光度矯正，臨床視力測量仍然比 eETDRS protocol視力測量低約1行。此外，臨床視力測量與protocol視力測量之間的時間差距並未顯現出明顯的關聯。平均而言，臨床 Snellen 視力測量值比 eETDRS protocol屈光度檢查和視力測試差了1至2行，這可能部分解釋了為什麼臨床上並不總是能夠複製臨床試驗的結果。那些臨床測量值較低的眼睛和未進行臨床屈光度檢查的眼睛通常會有更大的差異。因此，研究建議在確定治療計劃和臨床試驗轉介時應對患者進行屈光度矯正。
This study focuses on potential discrepancies between clinical and protocol visual acuity (VA) measurements, examining participants in DRCR Protocols AC, AE, (diabetic macular edema), and W (nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy). These participants’ eyes received no treatment between the clinical and protocol visits. The study found that even with refraction, clinical VA still measured approximately 1 line worse than the eETDRS protocol VA. Furthermore, there was no apparent association between the VA differences and the time gap between clinical and protocol measurements. On average, clinical Snellen VA is 1 to 2 lines worse than eETDRS protocol refraction and VA testing, which may partly explain why clinical practice does not always replicate clinical trial results. Eyes with lower clinical measurements and eyes tested without clinical refraction tended to have larger differences. Considering the potential discrepancies between clinical and protocol VA measurements, refracting eyes in the
clinic may benefit patients when determining treatment plans and study referrals based on vision.