ArticleOptometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry2021
Test-retest Repeatability of the Ohio Contrast Cards.
Article in Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ohio Contrast Cards are reliable and robust to blur under cycloplegia in visually normal children.Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the SpotChecks contrast sensitivity test in children.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2023Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
significanceThe Ohio Contrast Cards are a repeatable test of contrast sensitivity, and they reveal higher contrast sensitivity for low-vision patients than is shown by the Pelli-Robson chart. PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the contrast sensitivity results and test/retest ±limits of agreement for the Ohio Contrast Cards and the Pelli-Robson letter contrast sensitivity chart on two challenging groups of participants, and to compare the Ohio Contrast Card results with grating acuity and the Pelli-Robson results with letter acuity.
methodsThe Ohio Contrast Card and Pelli-Robson tests were each performed twice by two different examiners within one visit on 40 elder patients in Primary Vision Care (>65 years old) and 23 to 27 low-vision school-aged students. Grating acuity was measured using the Teller Acuity Cards (all participants), and letter acuity was measured using ClearChart (elders) or the Bailey-Lovie chart (students).
resultsThe ±95% limits of agreement were similar for the Ohio Contrast Cards and the Pelli-Robson chart. The elders' limits of agreement were ±0.27 (Ohio Contrast Cards) and ±0.28 (Pelli-Robson); the students' limits of agreement were ±0.42 (Ohio Contrast Cards) and ±0.51 (Pelli-Robson). However, Ohio Contrast Card results were 0.41 log10 Michelson units more sensitive than the Pelli-Robson chart (over one line on the Pelli-Robson chart) for the elders and 0.90 log10 Michelson units (three lines on the Pelli-Robson chart) more sensitive for the elders (0.11 and 0.6 log10 Weber units, respectively). The Pelli-Robson results were correlated with letter acuities and Ohio Contrast Card results for both groups, and the Ohio Contrast Card results were correlated with Teller Acuity Card acuities for the elders.
conclusionsThe Ohio Contrast Cards and Pelli-Robson chart are similarly repeatable. Both contrast sensitivity tests can provide additional clinical information that is not available through visual acuity testing, and Ohio Contrast Card may provide additional information not available from the Pelli-Robson chart.
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.