Trial reportInternational ophthalmology2018
How accurate is an LCD screen version of the Pelli-Robson test?
Trial report in International ophthalmology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Visual performance with multifocal corneal gas-permeable contact lenses in young adults: A pilot study.Journal of optometryTrial
- Precision and Normative Values of a New Computerized Chart for Contrast Sensitivity Testing.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- The effects of two longpass filters on visual performance.Journal of optometryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the accuracy and repeatability of a computer-generated Pelli-Robson test displayed on liquid crystal display (LCD) systems compared to a standard Pelli-Robson chart.
methodsTwo different randomized crossover experiments were carried out for two different LCD systems for 32 subjects: 6 females and 10 males (40.5 ± 13.0 years) and 9 females and 7 males (27.8 ± 12.2 years), respectively, in the first and second experiment. Two repeated measurements were taken with the printed Pelli-Robson test and with the LCDs at 1 and 3 m. To test LCD reliability, measurements were repeated after 1 week.
resultsIn Experiment 1, contrast sensitivity (CS) measured with LCD1 resulted significantly higher than Pelli-Robson both at 1 and at 3 m of about 0.20 log 1/C in both eyes (p < 0.01). Bland-Altman plots showed a proportional bias for LCD1 measures. LCD1 measurements showed reasonable repeatability: ICC was 0.83 and 0.65 at 1 and 3 m, respectively. In Experiment 2, CS measured with LCD2 resulted significantly lower than Pelli-Robson both at 1 and at 3 m of about 0.10 log 1/C in both eyes (p < 0.01). Bland-Altman plots did not show any proportional bias for LCD2 measures. LCD2 measurements showed sufficient repeatability: ICC resulted 0.51 and 0.65 at 1 and 3 m, respectively.
conclusionsComputer-generated versions of Pelli-Robson test, displayed on LCD systems, do not provide accurate results compared to classic Pelli-Robson printed version. Clinicians should consider that Pelli-Robson computer-generated versions could be non-interchangeable to the printed version.
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.