Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

JAMA Ophthalmology-The Year in Review, 2025: Initiatives Hitting Their Stride.

JAMA ophthalmology·2026
Same author

Factors predicting fluid-free retina and complete polypoidal regression in polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy eyes receiving 2-mg aflibercept treatments.

Asia-Pacific journal of ophthalmology (Philadelphia, Pa.)·2026
Same author

JAMA Ophthalmology-Eye on AI.

JAMA ophthalmology·2026
Same author

Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review.

JAMA·2025
Same author

Diabetic retinal disease.

Nature reviews. Disease primers·2025
Same author

Myopia and high myopia trends in Chinese children and adolescents over 25 years: a nationwide study with projections to 2050.

The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific·2025

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Mar 3, 2026

Author Spotlight: An Automated Method for Assessing Visual Acuity in Infants and Toddlers Using an Eye-Tracking System
05:10

Author Spotlight: An Automated Method for Assessing Visual Acuity in Infants and Toddlers Using an Eye-Tracking System

Published on: March 17, 2023

3.8K

Visual Acuity Reporting in Clinical Research Publications.

Brittany C Tsou1, Neil M Bressler2

  • 1Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.

JAMA Ophthalmology
|May 5, 2017
PubMed
Summary

Ophthalmology journals often use non-Snellen visual acuity formats, but over half of articles fail to provide Snellen equivalents. This hinders understanding, as many ophthalmologists struggle with these alternative visual acuity measurements.

More Related Videos

Binocular Dynamic Visual Acuity in Eyeglass-Corrected Myopic Patients
07:06

Binocular Dynamic Visual Acuity in Eyeglass-Corrected Myopic Patients

Published on: March 29, 2022

3.3K
Author Spotlight: Assessment of Visual Acuity in Central Vision Loss Through Motion-Based Peripheral Vision Testing
06:25

Author Spotlight: Assessment of Visual Acuity in Central Vision Loss Through Motion-Based Peripheral Vision Testing

Published on: February 23, 2024

1.2K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Mar 3, 2026

Author Spotlight: An Automated Method for Assessing Visual Acuity in Infants and Toddlers Using an Eye-Tracking System
05:10

Author Spotlight: An Automated Method for Assessing Visual Acuity in Infants and Toddlers Using an Eye-Tracking System

Published on: March 17, 2023

3.8K
Binocular Dynamic Visual Acuity in Eyeglass-Corrected Myopic Patients
07:06

Binocular Dynamic Visual Acuity in Eyeglass-Corrected Myopic Patients

Published on: March 29, 2022

3.3K
Author Spotlight: Assessment of Visual Acuity in Central Vision Loss Through Motion-Based Peripheral Vision Testing
06:25

Author Spotlight: Assessment of Visual Acuity in Central Vision Loss Through Motion-Based Peripheral Vision Testing

Published on: February 23, 2024

1.2K

Area of Science:

  • Ophthalmology
  • Clinical Research
  • Scientific Publishing

Background:

  • Visual acuity is reported in Snellen or non-Snellen formats (e.g., logMAR, ETDRS).
  • A 2011 study indicated many ophthalmologists misunderstand non-Snellen formats.
  • Journals have increasingly requested Snellen equivalents for non-Snellen visual acuity data.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To assess current visual acuity reporting practices in ophthalmology journals.
  • To determine the frequency of Snellen equivalent provision alongside non-Snellen visual acuity data.

Main Methods:

  • Review of articles published in 4 high-impact ophthalmology journals (Nov 2015-Oct 2016).
  • Evaluation of visual acuity reporting formats and the inclusion of Snellen equivalents.
  • One reviewer assessed 1881 articles, identifying 807 with visual acuity measurements.

Main Results:

  • 42.9% of articles reported visual acuity; 50.9% used non-Snellen formats.
  • Only 35.3% of articles with non-Snellen visual acuity provided a Snellen equivalent.
  • 64.7% of articles with non-Snellen visual acuity omitted Snellen equivalents.

Conclusions:

  • Over half of ophthalmology articles fail to provide Snellen equivalents for non-Snellen visual acuity.
  • Lack of Snellen equivalents impedes comprehension for many ophthalmologists.
  • Editors and publishers should encourage Snellen equivalents to improve clarity of visual acuity data.