ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2022
Contrast Sensitivity Testing in Age-Related Macular Degeneration Using Motion Diamond Stimulus.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study was performed to characterize changes in contrast sensitivity (CS) that occur in patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) using a novel test, the motion diamond stimulus (MDS).
methodsThis was a cross-sectional study in which 20 subjects with unilateral exudative AMD (eAMD) and contralateral dry AMD received 3 assessments: the Pelli-Robson (PR) CS Chart, the MDS test, and a visual function questionnaire-25 (VFQ-25). CS results from the PR, and MDS tests were compared across 3 groups: eyes with eAMD vs dry AMD, eAMD vs control, dry AMD vs control. Healthy, undilated eyes from another study served as the control group. Significance was determined using ANOVA analysis for the MDS output parameters (α: overall contrast threshold, β: adaptability of the visual system) and PR logCS. Patients were also administered the VFQ-25 to assess vision-related quality of life.
resultsThe ANOVA of the MDS data demonstrated a significant difference in visual function according to the β parameter of the 3 groups, but no significant difference in the α parameter. PR CS results for the 3 groups were significantly different, further supporting the MDS results. Post-hoc analysis showed a significant difference in β and PR log CS between the eAMD and control eyes.
conclusionThe MDS test is valuable in discerning CS impairments in patients with AMD. It can provide further insight into the visual changes experienced by patients with AMD and has potential to quantify visual function changes that are not found on visual acuity testing alone.
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.