Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35511149›Full record

ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2022

The Effect of Induced Intraocular Stray Light on Recognition Thresholds for Pseudo-High-Pass Filtered Letters.

Nilpa Shah, Steven C Dakin, Pádraig J Mulholland, Kalina Racheva, Juliane Matlach, Roger S Anderson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 55% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Nilpa ShahNIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK.
Steven C DakinNIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK.
Pádraig J MulhollandNIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK.
Kalina RachevaInstitute of Neurobiology, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria.
Juliane MatlachNIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK.
Roger S AndersonNIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK.
University College London · GBInstitute of Neurobiology · BGUniversity Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DEUniversity of Ulster · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The Moorfields Acuity Chart (MAC)-comprising pseudo-high-pass filtered "vanishing optotype" (VO) letters-is more sensitive to functional visual loss in age-related macular degeneration (AMD) compared to conventional letter charts. It is currently unknown the degree to which MAC acuity is affected by optical factors such as cataract. This is important to know when determining whether an individual's vision loss owes more to neural or optical factors. Here we estimate recognition acuity for VOs and conventional letters with simulated lens aging, achieved using different levels of induced intraocular light scatter. Methods: Recognition thresholds were determined for two experienced and one naive participant with conventional and VO letters. Stimuli were presented either foveally or at 10 degrees in the horizontal temporal retina, under varying degrees of intraocular light scatter induced by white resin opacity-containing filters (WOFs grades 1 to 5). Results: Foveal acuity only became significantly different from baseline (no filter) for WOF grade 5 with conventional letters and WOF grades 4 and 5 with VOs. In the periphery, no statistical difference was found for any stray-light level for both conventional and VOs. Conclusions: Recognition acuity measured with conventional and VOs is robust to the effects of simulated lens opacification, and thus its higher sensitivity to neural damage should not simultaneously be confounded by such optical factors. Translational Relevance: The MAC may be better able to differentiate between neural and optical deficits of visual performance, making it more suitable for the assessment of patients with AMD, who may display both types of functional visual loss.

Indexed as

Fovea CentralisMacular DegenerationHumansRetinaVision DisordersVisual Acuity

Identifiers

PMID35511149
PMCPMC9078078
OpenAlexW4229062738

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.