Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is conversion of decimal visual acuity measurements to logMAR values reliable?

  • Low Vision
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To assess if conversion of decimal visual acuity (VA) to logMAR is reliable for clinical and research purposes.

Methods

Right eye VA of 74 consecutive patients was measured with 5 min interval, using (a) the ETDRS chart (VAlog), (b) a decimal chart at 6 m (VA6m), and (c) a decimal chart at 4 m (VA4m). VA was the smallest line whereby four of five optotypes were correctly identified. Decimal scores were converted to logMAR using the formula logMAR = −log(decimal acuity). The agreement between VAlog, VA4m, and VA6m was assessed by the Bland-Altman method.

Results

Linear regression analysis of the difference between VAlog and VA6m or VA4m showed a significant slope (p = 0.001), with greater disagreement at higher VA values, i.e., poorer acuity. There was considerable lack of agreement, with discrepancies of up to 0.2 logMAR when VA was measured around 0.5 logMAR.

Conclusion

Converting decimal VA to logMAR produces overestimation of its true value, especially in lower acuities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Moutray TN, Williams MA, Jackson AJ (2008) Change of visual acuity recording methods in clinical studies across the years. Ophthalmologica 222:173–177

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chew EY, Lindblad AS, Clemons T (2009) Age-related eye disease study research group. Summary results and recommendations from the age-related eye disease study. Arch Ophthalmol 127(12):1678–1679

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Bailey IL, Lovie JE (1976) New design principles for visual acuity letter charts. Am J Optom Physiol 53(11):740–745

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Lovie-Kitchin JE (2015) Is it time to confine Snellen charts to the annals of history? Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 35:631–636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Paliaga GP (2006) Some remarks on the precision of visual acuity measurements. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 223(1):18–23

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Williams MA, Moutray TN, Jackson AJ (2008) Uniformity of visual acuity measures in published studies. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 49:4321–4327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Patel H, Congdon N, Strauss G, Lansingh C (2017) A need for standardization in visual acuity measurement. Arq Bras Oftalmol 80(5):332–337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Plainis S, Tzatzala P, Orphanos Y, Tsilimbaris MK (2007) A modified ETDRS visual acuity chart for European-wide use. Optom Vis Sci 84(7):647–653

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Holladay JT (2004) Visual acuity measurements. J Cataract Refract Surg 30(2):287–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bland JM, Altman DG (1999) Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 8:135–160

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Beck RW, Moke PS, Turpin AH et al (2003) A computerized method of visual acuity testing: adaptation of the Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study testing protocol. Am J Ophthalmol 135:194–205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bailey IL, Lovie-Kitchin JE (2013) Visual acuity testing. From the laboratory to the clinic. Vis Res 90:2–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. NAS-NRC Committee on vision (1980) Recommended standard procedures for the clinical measurement and specification of visual acuity. Adv Ophthalmol 41:103

    Google Scholar 

  14. Shah N, Dakin SC, Whitaker HL, Anderson RS (2014) Effect of scoring and termination rules on test-retest variability of a novel high-pass letter acuity chart. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 55(3):1386–1392

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kaiser PK (2009) Prospective evaluation of visual acuity assessment: a comparison of Snellen versus ETDRS charts in clinical practice (an AOS thesis). Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 107:311–324

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 2nd Department of Ophthalmology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Asimina Mataftsi, Dimitrios Koutsimpogeorgos, Periklis Brazitikos & Nikolaos Ziakas

  2. Department of Hygiene, Social-Preventive Medicine and Medical Statistics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Anna-Bettina Haidich

Authors
  1. Asimina Mataftsi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dimitrios Koutsimpogeorgos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Periklis Brazitikos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nikolaos Ziakas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anna-Bettina Haidich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Asimina Mataftsi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Author Asimina Mataftsi declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Author Dimitrios Koutsimpogeorgos declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Author Nikolaos Ziakas declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Author Periklis Brazitikos declared that he had no conflict of interest.

Author Anna-Bettina Haidich declares that she that has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mataftsi, A., Koutsimpogeorgos, D., Brazitikos, P. et al. Is conversion of decimal visual acuity measurements to logMAR values reliable?. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 257, 1513–1517 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-019-04344-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-019-04344-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation