July 2019
Volume 60, Issue 9
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   July 2019
Visual acuity with habitual correction on an ETDRS chart vs protocol refraction on an electronic ETDRS chart in diabetic macular edema
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Brittany Tsou
    Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
  • Jun Kong
    Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
  • Susan B Bressler
    Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
  • Christopher J. Brady
    Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
  • Catherine Meyerle
    Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
  • Mira Sachdeva
    Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
  • Adrienne Scott
    Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
  • Adam Wenick
    Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
  • Nazlee Zebardast
    Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
  • Neil M Bressler
    Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Brittany Tsou, None; Jun Kong, None; Susan Bressler, Bayer (F), Biophytis (F), Boehringher-ingleheim (F), Endpoint (F), Genentech- Roche (F), Mylan (F), Notal (F), Novartis (F); Christopher Brady, None; Catherine Meyerle, None; Mira Sachdeva, None; Adrienne Scott, Allegro (C), Allergan, Inc (C); Adam Wenick, None; Nazlee Zebardast, None; Neil Bressler, Bayer (F), Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine (F), Novartis (F), Roche (F), Samsung Bioepis (F)
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science July 2019, Vol.60, 2612. doi:https://doi.org/
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Brittany Tsou, Jun Kong, Susan B Bressler, Christopher J. Brady, Catherine Meyerle, Mira Sachdeva, Adrienne Scott, Adam Wenick, Nazlee Zebardast, Neil M Bressler; Visual acuity with habitual correction on an ETDRS chart vs protocol refraction on an electronic ETDRS chart in diabetic macular edema. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2019;60(9):2612. doi: https://doi.org/.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : To compare technician-measured visual acuity (VA) in clinical practice using Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) charts with VA following protocol refraction using electronic ETDRS (E-ETDRS) charts in diabetic macular edema (DME) patients.

Methods : Prospective case series in which participants (n=32) with DME had visual acuity measured first using habitual correction and an ETDRS chart, followed by E-ETDRS VA test letter score on an E-ETDRS device using habitual correction, followed by best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) on an E-ETDRS device after protocol refraction.

Results : Median ETDRS presenting VA of 20/40 and median E-ETDRS presenting VA letter score of 70 (20/40) improved after protocol refraction to a median E-ETDRS BCVA letter score of 75 (20/32). Median difference between E-ETDRS BCVA and ETDRS presenting VA was 0.0 (0 letters; 25th quartile -0.1 [5 letters], 75thquartile 0.1 [5 letters]) with 34 eyes (73.9%) changing ≥5 letters. These changes resulted in 8/46 (17.4%; 95% CI: 6.4%-28.3%) eyes switching from E-ETDRS BCVA 20/40 or better to 20/50 or worse, or vice versa.

Conclusions : While VA changed ≥5 letters in a majority of eyes when comparing E-ETDRS BCVA with ETDRS presenting VA, these findings suggest few cases likely change categorically from 20/40 or better to 20/50 or worse, or vice versa. When managing DME, ETDRS presenting VA with habitual correction may be acceptable despite the interaction of baseline VA among different anti-VEGF agents for DME when categorized in a trial using protocol refracted E-ETDRS VA as 20/32 to 20/40 vs 20/50 or worse.

This abstract was presented at the 2019 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Vancouver, Canada, April 28 - May 2, 2019.

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×