ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2021
Sensitivity and Stability of Functional Vision Tests in Detecting Subtle Changes Under Multiple Simulated Conditions.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2021. 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.
- Effect of Individualized Ocular Refraction Customization Spectacle Lens Wear on Visual Performance in Myopic Chinese Children.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Trial
- Contrast Sensitivity Impairment in Diabetic Retinopathy: Clinical and Structural Correlates.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging study on the effects of visual status on walking-related brain functions in healthy young adults.Chinese medical journal · 2026Article
- Frequency-dependent associations of contrast sensitivity and corneal aberrations after SMILE PRO in eyes with high astigmatism.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- A Novel Eye Tracking-Based Gamified Assessment of Contrast Sensitivity Function in Children: Prospective Development and Reliability Study.JMIR serious games · 2025Article
- 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
- Low-concentration atropine (0.01%) on quantitative contrast sensitivity function in Chinese children with myopia.International journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Using Hierarchical Bayesian Modeling to Enhance Statistical Inference on Contrast Sensitivity.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- How the window of visibility varies around polar angle.Journal of vision · 2024Article
- Comparison of the quantitative contrast sensitivity function between early keratoconus and normal eyes.BMC ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Associations between the cause of amblyopia and pre-treatment contrast sensitivity, stereoacuity, fixation, and nystagmus.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Binocular Summation With Quantitative Contrast Sensitivity Function: A Novel Parameter to Evaluate Binocular Function in Intermittent Exotropia.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024Article
- Quantification of Expected Information Gain in Visual Acuity and Contrast Sensitivity Tests.Research square · 2023Article
- Characteristics and predictive factors of visual function improvements after monocular perceptual learning in amblyopia.Heliyon · 2023Article
- The Characteristics of Quick Contrast Sensitivity Function in Keratoconus and Its Correlation with Corneal Topography.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2023Article
- Contrast Sensitivity Deficits and Its Structural Correlates in Fuchs Uveitis Syndrome.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To explore whether subtle changes in visual quality can be detected using different measures of visual function against the quick contrast sensitivity function test (quick CSF). Methods: Sixty participants, aged 17 to 34 years, were enrolled. Participants' vision was degraded by 0.25 D undercorrection (0.25 D), 60% neutral density filter brightness reduction (60% ND), and 0.8 Bangerter foil optical diffusion (0.8BAN). Visual function tests including visual acuity and contrast sensitivity (CSV-1000E and quick CSF) were measured with participant's best-corrected vision and under simulated visual degradation conditions. Test sensitivities in detecting differences were compared. Results: Statistically significant visual acuity degradation was observed in the 0.8BAN condition only (Pcorrected < 0.001). With CSV-1000E and outliers removed, significant CS degradation was observed in all spatial frequencies, area under log CSF (AULCSF) in the 0.8BAN condition (Pcorrected < 0.001 for all), medium and high spatial frequencies and AULCSF in the 60%ND condition (Pcorrected,6cpd = 0.002, Pcorrected,12cpd = 0.005, Pcorrected,18cpd = 0.001, Pcorrected,AULCSF < 0.001) and the 0.25 D condition (Pcorrected,6cpd = 0.011, Pcorrected,12cpd = 0.013, Pcorrected,18cpd = 0.015, Pcorrected,AULCSF < 0.001). With the quick CSF, significant CS degradation was observed in all simulated visual conditions in all spatial frequencies, cutoff frequency and AULCSF (Pcorrected < 0.001 for all). Test-retest reliability of the quick CSF method was high; coefficient of repeatability ranged from 0.14 to 0.18 logCS. Conclusions: Compared with visual acuity and chart-based CS tests, the quick CSF method provided more reliable and sensitive measures to detect small visual changes. Translational Relevance: The quick CSF method can provide sensitive and reliable measures to monitor disease progression and assess treatment outcomes.
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.