ReviewDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2016
[Ophthalmologic reading charts : Part 2: Current logarithmically scaled reading charts].
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- [The new standard for diagnostic near reading charts-DIN EN ISO 7921:2024].Die Ophthalmologie · 2026Review
- [Determination of refractive error and visual acuity after implantation of multifocal or extended depth of focus lenses].Die Ophthalmologie · 2024Article
- Introduction of a digital near-vision reading test for normal and low vision adults: development and validation.Eye and vision (London, England) · 2020Article
- Reading charts in ophthalmology.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2017Review
- Refractive errors.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2016Review
- A Comparative Validation Study of Near Visual Acuity Assessment Using Different Handheld Acuity Charts.Ophthalmology scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.