ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2022
Font effects on reading parameters: comparing Radner Reading Charts printed in Helvetica and Times Roman.
Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- [The new standard for diagnostic near reading charts-DIN EN ISO 7921:2024].Die Ophthalmologie · 2026Review
- Article
- Towards a standardisation of reading charts: Font effects on reading performance-Times New Roman with serifs versus the sans serif font Helvetica.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the effect of font choice on reading parameters by using the RADNER Reading Charts printed in two fonts (Helvetica vs. Times Roman) equalized in terms of x-height.
methodsThis is a cross-sectional study of 40 participants with healthy eyes (18 to 60 years of age; mean: 42.13 ± 12.28 years). Reading performance was evaluated binocularly with RADNER Reading Charts printed in either Helvetica Neue (T1) Roman sans serif (Adobe) or Times New Roman PS Roman serif (Adobe). The test distance was 40 cm. Reading charts were presented in random order. Reading acuity (RA), mean reading speed of all sentences read (MEAN-ALL RS), mean reading speed from 0.8 logRAD to 0.3 logRAD (MEAN-RS), maximum reading speed (MAX-RS), and critical print size (CPS) were compared.
resultsThe RA values obtained for the Helvetica and Times Roman fonts (in full logarithmic units of 0.1 logRAD) did not differ between the two fonts (mean for both fonts: - 0.128 ± 0.064 logRAD; 95% CI for both: - 0.148; - 0.107 logRAD). The differences in all other reading parameters between the two fonts were small and not statistically significant. The analyses revealed narrow confidence intervals and good coefficients of reliability. Except for the CPS (r = 0.49) and RA (equal for Helvetica and Times Roman), the correlations for all parameters were high, ranging from r = 0.92 to r = 0.98.
conclusionThe equivalent reading performance obtained with Helvetica and Times Roman (when equalized in x-height and layout) makes these font types interchangeable as standards for reading charts.
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.