ArticleOptometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry2018
Repeatability of Monocular Acuity Testing in Adults with and without Down Syndrome.
Article in Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Wavefront-optimised Refraction Determined Pre- and Post-cycloplegia in Individuals with Down Syndrome.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- Comparing visual acuity and optimized visual image quality for individuals with and without Down syndrome.Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry · 2025Article
- Comparison of Unaided and Aided Visual Acuity in Adults With Down Syndrome.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- Sources of reduced visual acuity and spectacle treatment options for individuals with Down syndrome: Review of current literature.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2024Review
- Visual Acuity Prediction Based on Different Refraction Types For Patients With Down Syndrome.Translational vision science & technology · 2023Article
- Understanding the Impact of Individual Perceived Image Quality Features on Visual Performance.Translational vision science & technology · 2020Article
- Can Tinted Lenses Be Used to Manipulate Pupil Size and Visual Performance When Wearing Multifocal Contact Lenses?Clinical optometry · 2020Article
- Impact of Pupil Diameter on Objective Refraction Determination and Predicted Visual Acuity.Translational vision science & technology · 2019Article
- Image Quality Metric Derived Refractions Predicted to Improve Visual Acuity Beyond Habitual Refraction for Patients With Down Syndrome.Translational vision science & technology · 2019Article
- Validation of the DYOP visual acuity test.Journal of optometryArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedErratum.2018
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeIndividuals with Down syndrome may experience greater difficulty reliably performing visual acuity (VA) tests because of intellectual disability and limitations in visual quality. This study evaluated the repeatability of acuity (Bailey-Lovie [BL] and HOTV) in subjects with and without Down syndrome.
methodsHigh-contrast VA was measured in both eyes of 30 subjects with Down syndrome (mean, 30 years; range, 18 to 50 years) and 24 control subjects without Down syndrome (mean, 29 years; range, 18 to 50 years). In the Down syndrome group, 23 subjects performed BL, and 7 subjects performed HOTV. All control subjects performed both BL and HOTV, but for HOTV analysis, only seven age-matched control subjects were included. For each eye, subjects performed VA three times on different charts (computer controlled, single-line display) until five total letters were missed on each chart. A repeated-measure ANOVA was used to compare the acuity measures between groups.
resultsThe average logMAR VA for subjects with Down syndrome was approximately six lines worse than the control subjects (BL: Down syndrome = right eye: 0.51 ± 0.16, left eye: 0.53 ± 0.18; control = right eye: -0.06 ± 0.06, left eye: -0.06 ± 0.08, P < .0001; HOTV: Down syndrome = right eye: 0.47 ± 0.19, left eye: 0.46 ± 0.16; control: right eye = -0.11 ± 0.09, left eye: -0.07 ± 0.07, P < .001). Bailey-Lovie VA repeatability (1.96 * Sw * √2) was 0.13 logMAR (6.5 letters) for Down syndrome and 0.09 logMAR (4.5 letters) for control subjects. HOTV VA repeatability was 0.16 logMAR (eight letters) for both Down syndrome and control subjects.
conclusionsDespite poorer acuity in individuals with Down syndrome, repeatability of VA measurements was comparable to control subjects for both BL and HOTV techniques.
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.