Visual acuity reporting in clinical research publications

Brittany C. Tsou, Neil M Bressler

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)651-653
Number of pages3
JournalJAMA Ophthalmology
Volume135
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2017

Fingerprint

Visual Acuity
Publications
Research
Ophthalmology
Journal Impact Factor
Diabetic Retinopathy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Visual acuity reporting in clinical research publications. / Tsou, Brittany C.; Bressler, Neil M.

In: JAMA Ophthalmology, Vol. 135, No. 6, 01.06.2017, p. 651-653.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Tsou, Brittany C. ; Bressler, Neil M. / Visual acuity reporting in clinical research publications. In: JAMA Ophthalmology. 2017 ; Vol. 135, No. 6. pp. 651-653.
@article{fdb58e08b6b14a34af4297cbec22fe7a,
title = "Visual acuity reporting in clinical research publications",
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.",
author = "Tsou, {Brittany C.} and Bressler, {Neil M}",
year = "2017",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.0932",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "135",
pages = "651--653",
journal = "JAMA Ophthalmology",
issn = "2168-6165",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Visual acuity reporting in clinical research publications

AU - Tsou, Brittany C.

AU - Bressler, Neil M

PY - 2017/6/1

Y1 - 2017/6/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85020715754&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85020715754&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.0932

DO - 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.0932

M3 - Article

C2 - 28472206

AN - SCOPUS:85020715754

VL - 135

SP - 651

EP - 653

JO - JAMA Ophthalmology

JF - JAMA Ophthalmology

SN - 2168-6165

IS - 6

ER -