ArticleScientific reports2022
Comparison of two different contrast sensitivity devices in young adults with normal visual acuity with or without refractive surgery.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Postoperative Contrast Sensitivity and Its Association with Lenticule Surface Regularity After KLEx with the VisuMax 800.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Mesopic binocular contrast sensitivity under glare conditions after myopic corneal laser refractive surgery.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025Article
- The impact of various daily disposable contact lens materials on contrast sensitivity.Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated the reliability and correlation of two contrast sensitivity test (CST) devices in young adults with normal visual acuity, with or without refractive surgery. 57 patients aged 20-39 years who received both manual (OPTEC-6500) and automated CST (CGT-2000) examinations from June 19 to July 24, 2021 were retrospectively enrolled. Patients with corrected visual acuity under 20/20 or history of ocular surgery other than refractive surgery were excluded. 82 eyes of 41 patients (40 eyes with and 42 without history of refractive surgery) were enrolled. Mean time taken to complete each examination was 396.4 ± 20.4 and 286.8 ± 2.3 s using manual and automated CST, respectively (P < 0.001). Patients who underwent refractive surgery had significantly decreased area under the log contrast sensitivity formula (AULCSF) in mesopic compared with photopic conditions in automated CST examinations (AULCSF difference 0.415 vs. 0.323 in patients with and without refractive surgery, P < 0.001), but there was no significant difference in manual CST examinations. Patients who reported decreased subjective night vision had significantly decreased AULCSF in automated CST examinations, but there was no significant difference in manual CST examinations. Compared with manual CST, automated CST was quicker and correlated well with decrease in subjective night vision.
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.