摘要目的：:研究智能视力表与标准对数视力表、早期治疗糖尿病视网膜病变研究（ETDRS）视力表测量视力的一致性，以及各自的重复性、再现性，并比较三者测量时长的差异。方法：:系列病例研究。收集2023年1—6月在温州医科大学附属眼视光医院视光门诊中心就诊的6~65岁矫正视力正常且无眼部器质性病变的患者125例。受检者在习惯的矫正状态下，根据随机顺序分别使用智能视力表、标准对数视力表、ETDRS视力表测量视力。按随机顺序由2名检查者完成，每名检查者对每种视力表分别测量2次，并记录测量时间。完成所有检查后，对患者进行问卷调查。采用右眼数据进行统计分析。将ETDRS视力记录结果转化成5分记录法，采用组内相关系数（ ICC）及Bland-Altman图表法分析3种视力表测量视力的一致性，以及各自的重复性和再现性。 结果：:智能视力表与标准对数视力表、标准对数视力表与ETDRS视力表、智能视力表与ETDRS视力表测量的平均差值、95%一致性界限、 ICC值分别为-0.01、-0.34~0.31、0.88，0.16、-0.08~0.39、0.94，0.15、-0.17~0.46、0.89；即智能视力表与标准对数视力表的视力均值接近，ETDRS视力结果偏小。检查者A使用ETDRS视力表、标准对数视力表、智能视力表测量2次的平均差值、95%一致性界限及其 ICC值分别为-0.02、-0.20~0.16、0.97，-0.01、-0.23~0.20、0.95，0.003、-0.18~0.19、0.96；即3种仪器重复性相当。2名检查者使用ETDRS视力表、标准对数视力表、智能视力表第一次测量结果的平均差值、95%一致性界限及其 ICC值分别为0.003、-0.21~0.21、0.96，0.006、-0.19~0.21、0.96，0.02、-0.27~0.31、0.89；即不同检查者间3种仪器的再现性相当。智能视力表、标准对数视力表、ETDRS视力表测量时长差异存在统计学意义（ F=485.04， P<0.001)，其中智能视力表所需时长最短，ETDRS最长。 结论：:智能视力表的测量值与标准对数视力表接近，但较ETDRS视力表测量值高0.15 LogMAR，其一致性、重复性、再现性的 ICC值均接近0.90，即测量精度高，结合其测量时间短，具有临床应用价值。

abstractsObjective::To assess the agreement, repeatability and reproducibility of the intelligent visual acuity chart, standard logarithmic visual acuity chart, and Early treatment of diabetic retinopathy study (ETDRS) visual acuity chart in measuring visual acuity, as well as their measurement time.Methods::This case series study included 125 patients aged 6-65 years Eye Hospital with normal corrected visual acuity and without eye diseases were recruited from the Primary Care of Eye Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University between January and June 2023. Visual acuity was measured using the with intelligent, standard logarithmic, and ETDRS visual acuity charts in a random order while parficipants were in their habitual corrected state. Each visual acuity chart was measured by two examiners for two successive measurements in random order. A questionnaire was fulfilled after all the examinations were finished. Data from the right eye was calculated. The results of ETDRS visual acuity were converted into a 5-point scale. Intraclass correlation coefficient ( ICC) and Bland-Altman plot were used to analyze the agreement, repeatability, and reproducibility among the three visual acuity charts. Results::The differences between two measurements, 95% limits of agreement (LoA) and ICC values between the intelligent and standard logarithmic visual acuity chart, standard logarithmic and ETDRS visual acuity chart, and intelligent and ETDRS visual acuity chart were (-0.01, -0.34-0.31, 0.88) (0.16, -0.08-0.39, 0.94) (0.15, -0.17-0.46, 0.89), respectively. The visual acuity of the intelligent visual acuity chart was similar to that of standard logarithmic visual acuity chart, while the ETDRS visual acuity results were lower. Intra-observer differences between two measurements, 95% LoA and ICC values of ETDRS, standard logarithmic and intelligent visual acuity chart were (-0.02, -0.20-0.16, 0.97), (-0.01, -0.23-0.20, 0.95), (0.003, -0.18-0.19, 0.96), respectively. In other words, the repeatability of the three instruments was comparable. Inter-observer differences between two measurements, 95% LoA, and ICC values of ETDRS, standard logarithmic and intelligent visual acuity chart was (0.003, -0.21-0.21, 0.96) (0.006, -0.19-0.21, 0.96) (0.02, -0.27-0.31, 0.89) respectively, indicating that the reproducibility among different examiners using the three instruments was comparable. There was a significant difference in measurement duration among the three visual acuity charts ( F=485.04, P<0.001), with the shortest time taken for the intelligent visual acuity chart and the longest for ETDRS. Conclusion::The measurements of intelligent visual acuity chart are similar to those of the standard logarithmic visual acuity chart, but are 0.15 LogMAR higher than those of the ETDRS visual acuity chart. The ICC values of agreement, repeatability, and reproducibility for the intelligent visual acuity chart are all close to 0.90, indicating high measurement accuracy. Combined with its short measurement duration, the intelligent visual acuity chart can be used in clinical practice.