{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024760832864378166, 'fraction_numerical': 0.015756893640967922, 'mean_word_length': 5.1522491349480966, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Utilization of Visual Acuity Retroilluminated Charts for the Assessment of Afferent Visual System Dysfunction in a Pediatric Neuroimmunology Population.

BACKGROUND
Visual acuity has been a significant outcome measure in clinical trials for patients suffering from neuro-ophthalmological diseases and multiple sclerosis; however, there are limited data on the comparison of various testing strategies in pediatric patients with these disorders. Clinical trials using vision as an outcome could include a variety of tools to assess the acuity, including 2-m and 4-m standardized retroilluminated charts.


METHODS
We investigated the difference in Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) scores obtained using 2-m and 4-m charts, as well as the impact of optic neuritis, use of vision correction, age, and gender on visual acuity data from 71 patients with pediatric neuroimmunological conditions in a cross-sectional study.


RESULTS
We determine that the ETDRS letter scores obtained using 4-m charts are on average 3.43 points less (P = 0.0034) when testing monocular ETDRS letter scores and on average 4.14 points less (P = 0.0008) when testing binocular ETDRS letter scores, relative to that obtained using the 2-m charts. However, we find that when performing monocular testing, optic neuritis in the eye being tested did not result in a statistically significant difference between 2-m and 4-m ETDRS letter scores.


CONCLUSIONS
Although visual acuity charts are formatted by the distance, there are significant differences in the number of letters correctly identified between 2-m and 4-m charts. Although the differences may not impact the clinical acuity, research protocols should consider these differences before collapsing data across disparate studies.