灯箱视力表与Freiburg电子视力表应用对比研究

Comparison between light house visual acuity chart and Freiburg electronic visual acuity chart

目的比较灯箱视力表与Freiburg电子视力表结果的一致性与可重复性,评价Freiburg电子视力表的临床应用价值。设计诊断性技术评价。研究对象空军杭州航空医学鉴定训练中心的工作人员86例,平均年龄(26.3±2.1)岁。方法所有入选者均随机由2位固定检查者分别使用灯箱视力表和Freiburg电子视力表进行检查,两种视力表检查的顺序随机决定。所有检查均在同一房间内完成,房间内亮度小于3 lux。检查距离均为3 m。对不同视力表间与检查者间测量重复性采用配对t检验比较结果的差别并计算相关系数r值。主要指标使用两种视力表获得的logMAR视力。结果在检查者一,用灯箱视力表查,被检者logMAR视力为0.19±0.23,Freiburg电子视力表0.20±0.15,两者差值为-0.011±0.141,差异无统计学意义(t=-0.741,P=0.461),但有显著相关性(r=0.808,P=0.000)。在检查者二,用灯箱视力表查,被检者logMAR视力为0.32±0.25,Freiburg电子视力表为0.20±0.15,两者差值为-0.118±0.151,差异有统计学意义(t=7.191,P=0.000)及显著相关性(r=0.810,P=0.000)。均用灯箱视力表,检查者一、二的差异有统计学意义(F=11.872,P=0.001),两者显著相关(r=0.938,P=0.000)。而均用Freiburg电子视力表,检查者一、二的差异无统计学意义(F=0.019,P=0.890),两者显著相关(r=0.986,P=0.000)。结论 Freiburg电子视力表受检查者因素的影响小于灯箱视力表,其在不同测量者间的可重复性优于灯箱视力表。

Objective To investigate the clinical application value of Freiburg electronic visual acuity chart by comparing the consistency and repeatability between light house visual acuity chart （LHVAC） and Freiburg electronic visual acuity chart（Freiburg）. Design Evaluation of diagnostic technology. Participants Eighty-six staff members （45 men and 41 women）from the Air Force of Hangzhou Aviation Medicine Training Center were involved, with an average age of 26.3＋2.1 years. Method All subjects were examined randomly and successively using LHVAC and Freiburg. All examinations were done in the same room. The brightness of the room was less than 3 lux and the work distance was 3 m. For each subject, the difference in visual acuity measurements obtained with the two visual acuity charts were evaluated by paired t-test and R value of the correlation coefficient were calculated. Main Outcome Measures LogMAR visual acuity obtained using the two charts. Results When used first, the logMAR visual acuity of LHVAC was 0.19±0.23. Accordingly, the result of Freiburg was 0.20±0.15. The difference between the two results was -0.011±0.141, the results showed that these two charts had no statistically significant difference between them（t=-0.741, P=0.461 ）and had significant correlation （r=0.808, P=-0.000）. When used in second, the IogMAR visual acuity of LHVAC chart was 0.32±0.25. Accordingly, the result of Freiburg was 0.20±0.15. The difference between the two results was -0.118±0.151, the results showed that these two charts had a statistically significant difference between them（t=7.191, P=0.000, however the results were significantly correlated （r=0.810, P=0.000）. Using LHVAC, the difference between the two examinations was significant （F=11.872,P=-0.001） and the correlation coefficient was 0.938 （P=0.000）. Using Freiburg examination, the difference between the two examinations was not significant （F=0.019,P=0.890） and the correlation coefficient was 0.986 （P=0.000）. Conclusion The influence of examination order on Freiburg was less than with LHVAC and the repeatability of Freiburg was better than LHVAC.