Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26586550›Full record

ReviewDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2016

[Ophthalmologic reading charts : Part 2: Current logarithmically scaled reading charts].

W Radner

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation StudyReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Reading charts in ophthalmology.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2017
    Review
  5. Refractive errors.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2016
    Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

W RadnerÖsterreichische Akademie für Augenheilkunde und Optometrie, Mollgasse 11, 1180, Wien, Österreich. wolfgang.radner@inode.at.
Universitätsklinik für Augenheilkunde · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo analyze currently available reading charts regarding print size, logarithmic print size progression, and the background of test-item standardization.

methodsFor the present study, the following logarithmically scaled reading charts were investigated using a measuring microscope (iNexis VMA 2520; Nikon, Tokyo): Eschenbach, Zeiss, OCULUS, MNREAD (Minnesota Near Reading Test), Colenbrander, and RADNER. Calculations were made according to EN-ISO 8596 and the International Research Council recommendations.

resultsModern reading charts and cards exhibit a logarithmic progression of print sizes. The RADNER reading charts comprise four different cards with standardized test items (sentence optotypes), a well-defined stop criterion, accurate letter sizes, and a high print quality. Numbers and Landolt rings are also given in the booklet. The OCULUS cards have currently been reissued according to recent standards and also exhibit a high print quality. In addition to letters, numbers, Landolt rings, and examples taken from a timetable and the telephone book, sheet music is also offered. The Colenbrander cards use short sentences of 44 characters, including spaces, and exhibit inaccuracy at smaller letter sizes, as do the MNREAD cards. The MNREAD cards use sentences of 60 characters, including spaces, and have a high print quality.

conclusionModern reading charts show that international standards can be achieved with test items similar to optotypes, by using recent technology and developing new concepts of test-item standardization. Accurate print sizes, high print quality, and a logarithmic progression should become the minimum requirements for reading charts and reading cards in ophthalmology.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicReadingVisual AcuityHumansPrintingReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityVision ScreeningNear visual acuityOphthalmological diagnostic techniquesReadingVision testsVisual acuity

Identifiers

PMID26586550
OpenAlexW2416156329

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.