ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2019
Development and Validation of a Smartphone-based Contrast Sensitivity Test.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
- Randomised controlled trial of topical combination therapy chlorhexidine 0.2% and natamycin 5% versus topical natamycin 5% alone for fungal keratitis in East Africa: study protocol.Wellcome open research · 2025Article
- Mobile Apps and Visual Function Assessment: A Comprehensive Review of the Latest Advancements.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2025Review
- PLFest: A New Platform for Accessible, Reproducible, and Open Perceptual Learning Research.Journal of cognitive enhancement : towards the integration of theory and practice · 2024Article
- Pushing the envelope: the feasibility of using a mailed contrast sensitivity test to prioritise cataract waiting lists.Eye (London, England) · 2024Article
- Assessment of visual function using mobile Apps.Eye (London, England) · 2024Review
- 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
- Remote Monitoring of Visual Function in Patients with Maculopathy: The Aphelion Study.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2024Article
- Article
- Scoping review of health information technology usability methods leveraged in Africa.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023Article
- Development and Validation of a Digital (Peek) Near Visual Acuity Test for Clinical Practice, Community-Based Survey, and Research.Translational vision science & technology · 2022Article
- Validation of Digital Applications for Evaluation of Visual Parameters: A Narrative Review.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- The potential use of digital health technologies in the African context: a systematic review of evidence from Ethiopia.NPJ digital medicine · 2021Review
- Evaluation of Tablet-Based Tests of Visual Acuity and Contrast Sensitivity in Older Adults.Ophthalmic epidemiology · 2021Article
- The Lancet Global Health Commission on Global Eye Health: vision beyond 2020.The Lancet. Global health · 2021Review
- Effects of screen-based retinal light stimulation measured with a novel contrast sensitivity test.PloS one · 2021Article
- Article
- Could telehealth help eye care practitioners adapt contact lens services during the COVID-19 pandemic?Contact lens & anterior eye : the journal of the British Contact Lens Association · 2020Article
- Challenges and impact of COVID-19 lockdown on Indian optometry practice: A survey-based study.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
8 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeContrast sensitivity (CS) testing is an important measure of visual function reflecting variations in everyday visual experience in different conditions and helps to identify more subtle vision loss. However, it is only infrequently used. To make this more accessible, we have developed and validated a smartphone-based CS test.
methodsA new tumbling-E smartphone-based CS test was developed, Peek Contrast Sensitivity (PeekCS). This was field tested and refined through several iterations. Reference standard was a tumbling-E Pelli-Robson CS test (PRCS). The validation study was conducted in community clinics in Ethiopia. Test-retest variability was measured for both PRCS and PeekCS. PRCS and PeekCS were then compared. Correlation coefficients and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated; 95% limits of agreement were calculated and displayed on Bland-Altman plots.
resultsPeekCS showed strong repeatability (correlation coefficient: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.91-0.95), which was comparable with PRCS (correlation coefficient: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.95-0.97). The 95% limit of agreement for test-retest variability of PRCS and PeekCS were -0.20 to 0.21 and -0.31 to 0.29, respectively. PRCS and PeekCS were highly correlated: 0.94 (95% CI: 0.93-0.95); 95% limits of agreement -0.27 to 0.29; and mean difference 0.010 (95% CI: -0.001 to 0.022). PeekCS had a faster testing time (44.6 seconds) than PRCS (48.6 seconds): mean difference -3.98 (95% CI: -5.38 to -2.58);
conclusionsThe smartphone-based PeekCS is a repeatable and rapid test, providing results that are highly comparable with the commonly used PRCS test. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: PeekCS provides an accessible and easy to perform alternative for CS testing, particularly in the community setting.
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.