Format

Send to

Choose Destination
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2017 Jun 1;135(6):651-653. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.0932.

Visual Acuity Reporting in Clinical Research Publications.

Author information

1
Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
2
Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland2Editor, JAMA Ophthalmology.

Abstract

Importance:

Visual acuity results in publications typically are reported in Snellen or non-Snellen formats or both. A study in 2011 suggested that many ophthalmologists do not understand non-Snellen formats, such as logarithm of the Minimum Angle of Resolution (logMAR) or Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letter scores. As a result, some journals, since at least 2013, have instructed authors to provide approximate Snellen equivalents next to non-Snellen visual acuity values.

Objective:

To evaluate how authors currently report visual acuity and whether they provide Snellen equivalents when their reports include non-Snellen formats.

Design:

From November 21, 2016, through December 14, 2016, one reviewer evaluated visual acuity reporting among all articles published in 4 ophthalmology clinical journals from November 2015 through October 2016, including 3 of 4 journals that instructed authors to provide Snellen equivalents for visual acuity reported in non-Snellen formats.

Main Outcomes and Measures:

Frequency of formats of visual acuity reporting and frequency of providing Snellen equivalents when non-Snellen formats are given.

Results:

The 4 journals reviewed had the second, fourth, fifth, and ninth highest impact factors for ophthalmology journals in 2015. Of 1881 articles reviewed, 807 (42.9%) provided a visual acuity measurement. Of these, 396 (49.1%) used only a Snellen format; 411 (50.9%) used a non-Snellen format. Among those using a non-Snellen format, 145 (35.3%) provided a Snellen equivalent while 266 (64.7%) provided only a non-Snellen format.

Conclusions and Relevance:

More than half of all articles in 4 ophthalmology clinical journals fail to provide a Snellen equivalent when visual acuity is not in a Snellen format. Since many US ophthalmologists may not comprehend non-Snellen formats easily, these data suggest that editors and publishing staff should encourage authors to provide Snellen equivalents whenever visual acuity data are reported in a non-Snellen format to improve ease of understanding visual acuity measurements.

PMID:
28472206
PMCID:
PMC5847078
DOI:
10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.0932
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Silverchair Information Systems Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center