ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2026
Visual Acuity: Comparison of ETDRS Charts Using Latin Letters, Tumbling E, or Landolt C Optotypes.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Visual acuity (VA) is a key outcome measure in clinical practice, epidemiological studies, and in clinical trials. However, letter-based charts may disadvantage individuals who are illiterate or are unfamiliar with Latin text, thereby limiting subject participation and complicating comparisons across studies. We compared VA using Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) charts for Latin letters, Landolt-C, or Tumbling-E optotypes to determine their association and measurement variability. Methods: Seventy-eight patients from an eye clinic underwent VA testing using the various optotypes on an ETDRS logMAR chart. VA was measured with a pinhole (PH), uncorrected, and corrected for the three optotypes, and compared with results in severe VA loss. Regression slopes, coefficients of determination, and limits of agreement (LoA) were determined. Results: All three optotype VAs showed a similar response to PH use, with an average improvement of approximately three logMAR lines. For uncorrected VA, Tumbling-E and Landolt-C showed slopes near 1.0 relative to letter VA across a broad range with R2 > 0.93. For corrected VA, slopes were 0.73 (Tumbling-E) and 0.58 (Landolt-C), with R2 ≈0.70. Combining our data with prior studies extended the range to 20/2000 for Landolt C and letter VA, yielding slopes near 1.0 and R2 > 0.94. LoA across comparisons ranged from logMAR ±0.12 to ±0.23. Conclusions: Non-letter optotypes provide clinically useful and broadly comparable measures of VA at the population level supporting their use in clinical practice or population/clinical studies. However, the wide variability means they cannot be considered interchangeable for individual subjects.
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.