ArticleOphthalmology science
A Comparative Validation Study of Near Visual Acuity Assessment Using Different Handheld Acuity Charts.
Article in Ophthalmology science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- How Accurate are Our Near Reading Charts? An Assessment of 19 Charts Against ISO Standards.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- Near Visual Acuity Measurements by Community Screeners Using Digital (Peek) Testing Versus Conventional Charts in India.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
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
Objective: To develop a conversion table and compare the cross-validity of 3 types of widely utilized near vision charts: the ETDRS near chart, the N-notation chart, and the Rosenbaum chart. Design: A prospective, cross-sectional, comparative validation study. Participants: Aged ≥40 years. Methods: A conversion table for the 3 types of near charts was created using objective character sizing based on vertical height captured using a surgical microscope with a 10× magnification. Eligible presbyopic patients had their near vision tested sequentially with 3 near charts in a randomized order. Main Outcome Measures: Pearson correlation coefficient ( Results: A total of 204 participants (129 women, 63.2%) were recruited for the study (mean age, 58.9 ± 7.1 years). For correlation, Conclusions: We have developed a conversion table for 3 types of commonly used near vision charts. When compared with the ETDRS near chart, the Rosenbaum chart had a smaller range of difference than the N-notation chart. Both the Rosenbaum and N-notation charts tended to underestimate near vision at worse vision. Financial Disclosures: The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.
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.