ArticleJournal of current ophthalmology
Comparison of Two Different Contrast Sensitivity Testing Methods in Patients with Low Vision.
Article in Journal of current ophthalmology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 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
- Contrast Sensitivity and Low-Contrast Visual Acuity in Children With Low Vision.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2026Article
- Pupillographic evaluation accompanying structural and functional assessment of the optic nerve in patients with Parkinson's disease.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Validation of a New Test for Measuring the Contrast Sensitivity Function (Optopad-CSF) at Near Vision.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Psychophysical, electrofunctional, and morphological evaluation in naïve neovascular AMD patients treated with intravitreal anti-VEGF.Aging medicine (Milton (N.S.W)) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the agreement between two different contrast testing modalities using the index of contrast sensitivity (ICS) in patients with low vision. Methods: Thirty-eight patients with low vision were included in the study. Contrast sensitivity (CS) was measured binocularly with both the Vector vision-standardized CS test (CSV-1000E, Vector Vision Co, Greenville, Ohio, USA) and the MonPack 3 (Metrovision, France) after refractive correction for each participant. Based on the data from the two tests, the ICS was calculated. The Bland-Altman technique was used to evaluate the agreement between ICSs obtained from different test methods. Results: Range of best corrected visual acuity was 0.50-1.00 logMAR. According to the median logCS values, CS values were highest at 3 cycles per degree (cpd) for the CSV-1000E test and at 1.5 cpd for the Metrovision MonPack 3 test. The median ICS for CSV-1000E was -0.22 (95 Conclusions: An agreement was found between the Metrovision MonPack 3 test and the standard CSV-1000E test results in patients with visual impairment. However, the agreement range was within very wide limits. Therefore, it was thought that they may not be used interchangeability in clinical practice.
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.