From research literature, we know that Snellen chart has many flaws as an optotype. Many literatures recommend LogMAR system with SLOAN letters as the Gold standard for examination of visual acuity.
But although for a long time ago LogMAR optotype has been socialized, there are still many practitioners use Snellen chart for visual acuity.
For research purposes it would be advisable to use LogMar chart since Snellen chart is not so scientific .
Date cannot be reproduced due to various deficiencies like enequal number of letters in each line, dispropocinate spacing in between lines etc
I strongly recommend Log Mar chart.
For a routine clinical workflow, Snellen does pretty well. But for research purpose and specific cases you may prefer logMar.
Yes I agree , Routine examination purposes one can use Snellen chart!
We prefer the landolt broken ring in logarithmic classification for clinical workflow. This corresponds to the norm in Germany.
Sometimes it also dilemma for citezens that don't understand common international letters for visual acuity test. For examples some countries of ASEAN. Maybe they can understand about how to read Landolt rings better than others international Letters. Sometimes it also difficult to translate such "subperasaan" or "feeling" to the countries that never experience those "subperasaan" into suitable words in international language. For example : "arroy, maleu, kheng reng, khun kha, etc".
Thank you for your sharing Tshubelela Magakwe, Ruben Cuadrado, and Mario Rehnert.
FOR ROUTINE EYE EXAMINATION SNELLEN CHART IS GOOD, BUT FOR RESEARCH WORK LogMAR IS GOOD.NOW A DAYS LCD - Snellen chart is using.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Psychology
- Attitude