ArticleOphthalmology science
Magnitude of Visual Acuity Change with ETDRS versus Snellen Testing in Clinical Trials: Implications for Clinic-Based Outcomes.
Article in Ophthalmology science. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Retinal Pigment Epithelium Transplantation in Retinal Disease: Clinical Trial Development, Challenges, and Future Directions.Biomolecules · 2025Review
- Visual Acuity Examination Methodology in Keratoconus.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Prediction of Functional and Anatomic Progression in Lamellar Macular Holes.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
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare visual acuity (VA) changes using standardized ETDRS best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and nonstandardized Snellen VA among subjects enrolled in clinical trials. Design: Retrospective study. Participants: Patients enrolled in prospective clinical trials at 3 urban retina practices. Methods: Best available Snellen VA at the clinic visit before study entry and after exit were compared with the ETDRS BCVA at trial entry and exit. The correlation and discrepancies between Snellen VA and ETDRS methods as well as the VA changes from trial entry to exit were evaluated. Main Outcome Measures: The discrepancy between VA change from trial entry to exit using Snellen VA versus ETDRS BCVA methods. Results: A total of 273 eyes were included. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) Snellen VA was 58.1 (20) ETDRS-equivalent letters (Snellen 20/69) at the clinic visit before trial entry and 61.6 (21) ETDRS-equivalent letters (Snellen 20/59) at the visit after trial exit. The mean (SD) ETDRS BCVA was 65.5 (16) letters (Snellen 20/49) at trial entry and 70.5 (17) letters (Snellen 20/39) at trial exit. The mean VA change from trial entry to exit was not significantly different for ETDRS (5 letters of vision gain) compared with Snellen (3.6 letters of vision gain) methods ( Conclusions: The mean VA change from clinical trial entry to exit was similar between the ETDRS and Snellen methods. However, among patients with worse baseline Snellen vision, the magnitude of VA change was greater with Snellen compared with ETDRS, whereas among those with better baseline vision, this magnitude was greater with the ETDRS method. Understanding the proportion of the study population with varying VA levels may have implications for interpreting VA outcomes from retrospective clinic-based studies compared with those reported in clinical trials. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.
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.