ArticleScientific reports2021
A reassessment and comparison of the Landolt C and tumbling E charts in managing amblyopia.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. 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.
- Visual Acuity: Comparison of ETDRS Charts Using Latin Letters, Tumbling E, or Landolt C Optotypes.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2026Article
- Psychometric Performance of Children With Amblyopia During a Tablet-Based Adaptive Visual Acuity Assessment.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2026Article
- Development and performance evaluation of a Bengali-adapted mHealth app for early detection of impaired visual acuity.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Developing a Novel Pediatric Eye Chart Assessing Visual Acuity by Minimum Separable Threshold.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The Freiburg Acuity Test in Preschool Children: Testability, Test-Retest Variability, and Comparison With LEA Symbols.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- Design and Implementation of a Smart Wireless Controlled Visual Acuity Measurement System.Journal of medical signals and sensorsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Current criteria for amblyopia do not account for difference in visual acuity charts. This prospective observational study analyzed 100 children younger than 10 years treated at a tertiary referral center. Visual acuity was separately tested in each eye using Landolt C and tumbling E charts in a random order. For each chart, receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to determine the best cutoff for visual acuity score. Main outcome measures included the difference in visual acuity scores between the two charts, the feasibility of repeated testing of visual acuity in each eye, and amblyopia cutoff values for each chart. Mean logMAR visual acuity scores obtained by tumbling E chart were significantly better than those obtained by Landolt C chart. For amblyopia, the best cutoff values were < + 0.14 (20/27 Snellen equivalent) for tumbling E chart and < + 0.24 (20/35 Snellen equivalent) for Landolt C chart. For children under 10 years old, visual acuity scores for tumbling E chart were significantly better than those for Landolt C chart. We suggest that amblyopia management in children should account for age and the type of visual acuity chart used.
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.