ArticleIEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics2018
New Precision Metrics for Contrast Sensitivity Testing.
Article in IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Differences in Contrast Sensitivity Measurement With Letters and Gratings.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- Contrast Sensitivity Impairment in Diabetic Retinopathy: Clinical and Structural Correlates.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Multi-dimensional evaluation of user-operated audible contrast sensitivity tests towards efficient hearing healthcare services.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Postoperative Contrast Sensitivity and Its Association with Lenticule Surface Regularity After KLEx with the VisuMax 800.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Article
- Tolerance to lens tilt and decentration of two multifocal intraocular lenses: using the quick contrast sensitivity function method.Eye and vision (London, England) · 2022Article
- Contrast Sensitivity Testing in Age-Related Macular Degeneration Using Motion Diamond Stimulus.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022Article
- Sensitivity and Stability of Functional Vision Tests in Detecting Subtle Changes Under Multiple Simulated Conditions.Translational vision science & technology · 2021Article
- Do Impairments in Visual Functions Affect Skiing Performance?Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Article
- Meridian-Specific and Post-Optical Deficits of Spatial Vision in Human Astigmatism: Evidences From Psycho-Physical and EEG Scalings.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Validation of Computer-Adaptive Contrast Sensitivity as a Tool to Assess Visual Impairment in Multiple Sclerosis Patients.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Article
- Psychophysical Validation of a Novel Active Learning Approach for Measuring the Visual Acuity Behavioral Function.Translational vision science & technology · 2021Article
- Relationship of Contrast Sensitivity Measured Using Quick Contrast Sensitivity Function With Other Visual Functions in a Low Vision Population.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2020Article
- Vision Parameters Most Important to Functionality in Glaucoma.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2019Article
- Spatial contrast sensitivity: effects of reliability, test-retest repeatability and sample size using the Metropsis software.Eye (London, England) · 2019Article
- Evaluation of the precision of contrast sensitivity function assessment on a tablet device.Scientific reports · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Visual sensitivity is comprehensively described by the contrast sensitivity function (CSF), but current routine clinical care does not include its assessment because of the time-consuming need to estimate thresholds for a large number of spatial frequencies. The quick CSF method, however, dramatically reduces testing times by using a Bayesian information maximization rule. We evaluate the test-retest variability of a tablet-based quick CSF implementation in a study with 100 subjects who repeatedly assessed their vision with and without optical correction. We first discuss two commonly used measures of repeatability, intraclass correlation and the Bland-Altman Coefficient of Repeatability, and show that they are vulnerable to artifacts. Instead, we propose to formulate precision as an information retrieval task: from all repeat test scores, can we retrieve a certain individual based on their first test score? We then use rank-based analyses such as mean average precision as a better measure to compare different test metrics, and show that the highest test-retest precision is achieved using a summary statistic, the area under the log CSF (AULCSF). This demonstrates the benefit of assessment of the whole CSF compared to sensitivity at individual spatial frequencies only. AULCSF also yields best discrimination performance (99.2%) between measurements that were taken with and without glasses, respectively, even better than CSF Acuity. The tablet-based quick CSF thus enables the rapid and reliable home monitoring of visual function, which has the potential to improve early diagnosis and treatment of ophthalmic pathologies such as diabetic retinopathy or age-related macular degeneration.
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.