ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2026
How Accurate are Our Near Reading Charts? An Assessment of 19 Charts Against ISO Standards.
Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMeasuring near vision provides clinicians with valuable insight into visual function. There is limited information on the accuracy of available reading charts used frequently in community practice. This study aimed to measure internationally available reading charts to determine how they compare to international standards.
methodsCommercial and device manufacturer-provided reading charts available in community optometry clinics were scanned at 600 dots per inch. A Gaussian adaptive threshold was used to facilitate repeatable measurements. X-heights of letters were measured independently by three researchers. Contrast levels and line spacing were also estimated. Results for each chart were compared with ISO Standards. Intraclass correlation coefficient was used to assess intergrader agreement.
resultsOf the 19 reading charts that were measured, only one chart (5.26%) had text sizes that were all within tolerance. There was high variability in size observed between charts. Twelve charts (63.2%) used serif fonts and seven used sans-serif (36.8%). Text on serif charts tended to be smaller than required (µ = -9.63%) compared to sans-serif (µ = +4.96%). All charts met the line spacing requirements and the minimum required contrast level; however, some charts were printed on laminated or satin plastic, which does not meet the standard of using a matte surface. There was high interrater agreement (ICC(2,1) = 1.00), indicating a highly repeatable measurement technique.
conclusionThis study found that the tested reading charts displayed significant variability in text size. Although some charts had more lines of text within size tolerances than others, none met all the requirements of the International Standard. Clinicians and researchers should take care when interpreting changes in near reading acuity when multiple charts have been used, especially as part of shared care models or when monitoring progressive vision changes. A free UC/UWA Reading Chart has been developed as a result of this study, which conforms to the ISO Standard.
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.