ArticleEye and vision (London, England)2022
Possible limits of calibrating reading charts with the Landolt ring: a microscopic study.
Article in Eye and vision (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate microscopically whether the print quality and accuracy of sizing of Landolt ring near vision charts are adequate for the calibration of reading charts.
methodsNear vision charts with Landolt rings from Oculus GmbH (C-Test; Wetzlar, Germany), Precision Vision (Woodstock, IL) and the RADNER Charts were examined, as well as custom-made Landolt rings optimized for print quality. Microscopic investigations and measurements were performed by using a Huvitz HSZ 600 stereomicroscope (Nikon NIS Elements software) to evaluate the height of the Landolt rings, the thickness of the lines, and the width of the openings. The deviations from the mathematically correct values, which were calculated as given in the EN/ISO 8596 and by the International Council of Ophthalmology (ICO), were analyzed (calculated for a test distance of 40 cm).
resultsAll the near vision charts showed notable deficiencies in print quality and aberrations from the nominal values in the height, thickness of the lines, and width of the openings. The openings were too narrow, whereas the height and thickness of the lines were larger than the nominal values. Even the openings of Landolt rings optimized for print quality were not always within an acceptable 5% tolerance and need further improvement.
conclusionThis study reports inaccuracies in the heights, thicknesses of the lines, and widths of the openings of Landolt rings in all the near vision charts investigated. The extent of these inaccuracies excludes such near vision charts as reference tests for the calibration of reading charts. The x-height in relation to the visual angle still seems to be the most reliable method for standardizing the print sizes 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.