Predicting prescribed magnification.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the best method of estimating the optimum magnification needed by visually impaired patients.


METHODS
The magnification of low vision aids prescribed to 187 presbyopic visually impaired patients for reading newspapers or books was compared with logMAR distance and near acuity (at 25 cm) and magnification predicted by +4 D step near additions.


RESULTS
Distance letter (r = 0.58) and near word visual acuity (r = 0.67) were strongly correlated to the prescribed magnification as were predictive formulae based on these measures. Prediction using the effect of proximal magnification resulted in a similar correlation (r = 0.67) and prediction was poorer in those who did not benefit from proximal magnification. The difference between prescribed and predicted magnification was found to be unrelated to the condition causing visual impairment (F = 2.57, p = 0.08), the central visual field status (F = 0.57, p = 0.57) and patient psychology (F = 0.44, p = 0.51), but was higher in those prescribed stand magnifiers than high near additions (F = 5.99, p < 0.01).


CONCLUSIONS
The magnification necessary to perform normal visual tasks can be predicted in the majority of cases using visual acuity measures, although measuring the effect of proximal magnification demonstrates the effect of stronger glasses and identifies those in whom prescribed magnification is more difficult to predict.
Wolffsohn
James S
JS
Neurosciences Research Institute, Aston University, Birmingham B4 7ET, UK. j.s.w.wolfsohn@aston.ac.uk
Eperjesi
Frank
F
D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D005139:Eyeglasses; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009907:Optometry / Q000379:methods*; D014786:Vision Disorders / Q000523:psychology / Q000628:therapy*; D014792:Visual Acuity