By linear regression, ETDRS acuity of the patients declined by 1.1 letters for each 10-μm decrease in retinal thickness at fixation (
r 2 = 0.27,
P < 0.001) and by 1.3 letters for each 10-μm decrease in retinal thickness averaged over the central 1 mm (
r 2 = 0.32,
P < 0.001). These results are illustrated in
Figures 2 and 3 , respectively. Because the residual error for each of these linear models could be fitted to retinal thickness by a second-order polynomial in which the quadratic term was significant (
P < 0.001), we repeated the regressions of ETDRS acuity on retinal thickness using a second-order polynomial. Both second-order models predicted acuity from retinal thickness with
r 2 = 0.38 (
P < 0.001). The predicted curves peak at an ETDRS acuity of 54 letters (Snellen equivalent = 20/25) for a retinal thickness of 218 μm at fixation
(Fig. 2)and 254 μm averaged over the central 1 mm
(Fig. 3) , and both curves decline toward lower acuities to the left and right of the peak. For example, the curve based on retinal thickness measured at fixation
(Fig. 2)shows that ETDRS acuity declines to 10 letters (Snellen equivalent, 20/200) for a retinal thickness of 34 μm and to 43 letters (Snellen equivalent, 20/42) for a retinal thickness of 309 μm. Because ETDRS acuity is based on a logarithmic scale, we also evaluated the regression of ETDRS acuity on log
10 retinal thickness. This model provided fits with
r 2 = 0.34 (
P < 0.001) for retinal thickness measured at fixation
(Fig. 2)and
r 2 = 0.36 (
P < 0.001) for retinal thickness measured over the central 1 mm
(Fig. 3) , with these
r 2 values falling between those for the linear and second-order polynomial models.