Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ British and Irish Or...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
British and Irish Orthoptic Journal
Article . 2010 . Peer-reviewed
License: CC BY
Data sources: Crossref
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
British and Irish Orthoptic Journal
Article
License: CC BY
Data sources: UnpayWall
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Visual screening: a comparison of the Keeler crowded logMAR and Snellen tests

Authors: Natalie Ainscough; Jacqueline Bates; Lorraine North;

Visual screening: a comparison of the Keeler crowded logMAR and Snellen tests

Abstract

Aim: To assess the effectiveness of the Keeler crowded logMAR visual acuity test in comparison with the Snellen test and to establish the optimum visual acuity threshold, using the Keeler crowded logMAR, for referral from the orthoptic secondary screening service to the ophthalmologist. Methods: A retrospective audit was carried out of community and hospital records of all referrals from the secondary vision screening clinics over the 2-year period from 31 July 2007 to 1 August 2009. In total, notes of 1035 patients were reviewed for this audit. The age at referral, visual acuity, vision test and primary diagnosis were recorded. Data were excluded if the patient: had records that were incomplete, had poor cooperation during assessment, had no formal visual acuity testing, or had been tested using the Cardiff Acuity Test or Kay Pictures. All Snellen visual acuities were converted into alogMAR equivalent to allow for direct comparison. Frimley Park Hospital’s visual acuity criterion for referral from the secondary screening service was a uniocular Snellen equivalent of poorer than 6/6 (equivalent) vision. Since the introduction of the Keeler logMAR tests, the criterion has been set at less than 0.100 for the crowded logMAR. Results: The false-positive referral rate was 15.094% (n = 32) for the Snellen test whereas for the crowded logMAR it was 17.949% (n = 7) at the established referral level of visual acuity. Conclusion: Such a high false-positive rate is attributable to our high visual acuity threshold referral criterion. Analysing the data available using different threshold levels of acuity for referral, it was found that accuracy can be improved, whilst maintaining maximum sensitivity, by adopting 0.175 on the crowded logMAR test as the visual acuity referral criterion and also ensuring that all patients with an intraocular difference of 0.100 logMAR are referred.

Related Organizations
Keywords

False positives, Ophthalmology, Secondary screening, logMAR acuity, RE1-994

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
gold