Visual Acuity: Comparison of ETDRS Charts Using Latin Letters, Tumbling E, or Landolt C Optotypes

Purpose: Visual acuity (VA) is a key outcome measure in clinical practice, epidemiological studies, and in clinical trials. However, letter-based charts may disadvantage individuals who are illiterate or are unfamiliar with Latin text, thereby limiting subject participation and complicating comparisons across studies. We compared VA using Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) charts for Latin letters, Landolt-C, or Tumbling-E optotypes to determine their association and measurement variability. Methods: Seventy-eight patients from an eye clinic underwent VA testing using the various optotypes on an ETDRS logMAR chart. VA was measured with a pinhole (PH), uncorrected, and corrected for the three optotypes, and compared with results in severe VA loss. Regression slopes, coefficients of determination, and limits of agreement (LoA) were determined. Results: All three optotype VAs showed a similar response to PH use, with an average improvement of approximately three logMAR lines. For uncorrected VA, Tumbling-E and Landolt-C showed slopes near 1.0 relative to letter VA across a broad range with R2 > 0.93. For corrected VA, slopes were 0.73 (Tumbling-E) and 0.58 (Landolt-C), with R2 ≈0.70. Combining our data with prior studies extended the range to 20/2000 for Landolt C and letter VA, yielding slopes near 1.0 and R2 > 0.94. LoA across comparisons ranged from logMAR ±0.12 to ±0.23. Conclusions: Non-letter optotypes provide clinically useful and broadly comparable measures of VA at the population level supporting their use in clinical practice or population/clinical studies. However, the wide variability means they cannot be considered interchangeable for individual subjects.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science
Published
2026-09-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.67.11.4
Primary Topic
Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Visual Acuity: Comparison of ETDRS Charts Using Latin Letters, Tumbling E, or Landolt C Optotypes

Michael Kalloniatis, Henrietta Wang, Jack Phu, Nimesh B. Patel et al.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science
Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
article

Visual Acuity: Comparison of ETDRS Charts Using Latin Letters, Tumbling E, or Landolt C Optotypes

Michael Kalloniatis, Henrietta Wang, Jack Phu, Nimesh B. Patel, Kimberly Meier
article en

Abstract

Purpose: Visual acuity (VA) is a key outcome measure in clinical practice, epidemiological studies, and in clinical trials. However, letter-based charts may disadvantage individuals who are illiterate or are unfamiliar with Latin text, thereby limiting subject participation and complicating comparisons across studies. We compared VA using Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) charts for Latin letters, Landolt-C, or Tumbling-E optotypes to determine their association and measurement variability. Methods: Seventy-eight patients from an eye clinic underwent VA testing using the various optotypes on an ETDRS logMAR chart. VA was measured with a pinhole (PH), uncorrected, and corrected for the three optotypes, and compared with results in severe VA loss. Regression slopes, coefficients of determination, and limits of agreement (LoA) were determined. Results: All three optotype VAs showed a similar response to PH use, with an average improvement of approximately three logMAR lines. For uncorrected VA, Tumbling-E and Landolt-C showed slopes near 1.0 relative to letter VA across a broad range with R2 > 0.93. For corrected VA, slopes were 0.73 (Tumbling-E) and 0.58 (Landolt-C), with R2 ≈0.70. Combining our data with prior studies extended the range to 20/2000 for Landolt C and letter VA, yielding slopes near 1.0 and R2 > 0.94. LoA across comparisons ranged from logMAR ±0.12 to ±0.23. Conclusions: Non-letter optotypes provide clinically useful and broadly comparable measures of VA at the population level supporting their use in clinical practice or population/clinical studies. However, the wide variability means they cannot be considered interchangeable for individual subjects.

Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual ScienceVol. 67(11)
Twitter (United States) (US), Deakin University (AU), UNSW Sydney (AU), University of Houston (US)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.