ArticleJournal of optometry
Designing a new test for contrast sensitivity function measurement with iPad.
Article in Journal of optometry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
33 citing papers in PubMed.
- How accurate is an LCD screen version of the Pelli-Robson test?International ophthalmology · 2018Trial
- Assessment of visual contrast sensitivity in biotoxin-exposed individuals using four testing methods.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- Differences in Contrast Sensitivity Measurement With Letters and Gratings.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- Article
- Validation and evaluation of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity with a new digital device: OPTOTAB®.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025Article
- Pilot Study Evaluating the Early Clinical Outcomes Obtained with a Novel, Customized, Multifocal Corneo-Scleral Contact Lens for Presbyopia Correction.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Mobile Apps and Visual Function Assessment: A Comprehensive Review of the Latest Advancements.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2025Review
- Assessment of visual function using mobile Apps.Eye (London, England) · 2024Review
- Validation of a New Test for Measuring the Contrast Sensitivity Function (Optopad-CSF) at Near Vision.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Correlation between color vision, visual acuity, contrast sensitivity and photostress recovery in the visually impaired: a cross-sectional study.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2024Article
- Article
- The spatial contrast sensitivity function and its neurophysiological bases.Vision research · 2023Article
- Tolerance to lens tilt and decentration of two multifocal intraocular lenses: using the quick contrast sensitivity function method.Eye and vision (London, England) · 2022Article
- Simultaneous Presbyopia and Astigmatism Correction with a Novel Trifocal Toric Intraocular Lens-A One-Year Follow-Up.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- The Influence of Angle Alpha, Angle Kappa, and Optical Aberrations on Visual Outcomes after the Implantation of a High-Addition Trifocal IOL.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Prediction Error Stabilization and Long-Term Standard Results with a Monofocal Intraocular Lens.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Clinical Utility of 'Peekaboo Vision' Application for Measuring Grating Acuity in Children with Down Syndrome.The British and Irish orthoptic journal · 2022Article
- Characterization of technologies in digital health applied in vision care.Journal of optometry · 2022Review
- Validation of Digital Applications for Evaluation of Visual Parameters: A Narrative Review.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- StimuliApp: Psychophysical tests on mobile devices.Behavior research methods · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo introduce a new application (ClinicCSF) to measure Contrast Sensitivity Function (CSF) with tablet devices, and to compare it against the Functional Acuity Contrast Test (FACT).
methodsA total of 42 subjects were arranged in two groups of 21 individuals. Different versions of the ClinicCSF (.v1 and .v2) were used to measure the CSF of each group with the same iPad and the results were compared with those measured with the FACT. The agreements between ClinicCSF and FACT for spatial frequencies of 3, 6, 12 and 18 cycles per degree (cpd) were represented by Bland-Altman plots.
resultsStatistically significant differences in CSF of both groups were found due to the change of the ClinicCSF version (p<0.05) while no differences were manifested with the use of the same FACT test. The best agreement with the FACT was found with the ClinicCSF.v2 with no significant differences in all the evaluated spatial frequencies. However, the 95% confidence intervals for mean differences between ClinicCSF and FACT were lower for the version which incorporated a staircase psychophysical method (ClinicCSF.v1), mainly for spatial frequencies of 6, 12 and 18 cpd.
conclusionsThe new ClinicCSF application for iPad retina showed no significant differences with FACT test when the same contrast sensitivity steps were used. In addition, it is shown that the accurateness of a vision screening could be improved with the use of an appropriate psychophysical method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.