Skip to main content
. 2020 Dec 14;36(1):e5. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e5

Table 3. Comparison of final visual acuities assessed with the OTS categorization with Kuhn et al.'s study7 .

Sum of raw points OTS category No. of eyes,a in this study/in OTS study Final visual acuity (%), in this study/in OTS study
NLP LP to HM CF to 15/200 20/50 to 20/200 < 20/40, ≥ 0.5 P valueb
0–44 1 8/215 88/74 (n = 7) 0/15 (n = 0) 13/7 (n = 1) 0/3 (n = 0) 0/1 (n = 0) 0.683
(P < 0.001) (P = 0.338)
46–65 2 6/374 83/27 (n = 5) 0/26 (n = 0) 0/18 (n = 0) 16/15 (n = 1) 0/15 (n = 0) 0.007
(P < 0.001) (P = 0.647)
66–80 3 7/808 0/2 (n = 0) 0/11 (n = 0) 43/15 (n = 3) 14/31 (n = 1) 43/41 (n = 3) 0.076
(P = 0.002) (P = 0.703) (P = 0.197)
81–90 4 22/378 5/1 (n = 1) 5/2 (n = 1) 0/3 (n = 0) 36/22 (n = 8) 55/73 (n = 12) 0.122
(P = 0.175) (P = 0.387) (P = 0.003) (P = 0.190)
92–100 5 59/376 0/0 (n = 0) 2/0 (n = 1) 2/1 (n = 1) 10/5 (n = 6) 86/94 (n = 51) 0.053
(P = 0.618) (P = 0.104) (P = 0.06) (P < 0.001)

Percentage in each column may not equal 100% due to rounding.

OTS = Ocular Trauma Score, NLP = no light perception, LP = light perception, HM = hand motion, CF = count fingers.

aOnly 37.1% of patients could be categorized by OTS score due to some limitations including lack of medical records, drunken or sedated state, severe periocular trauma; bP values were calculated using χ2 test and Fisher's exact test as appropriate. In each OTS category, distribution of final visual acuities was compared to the OTS study.