ArticleScientific reports2022
Mesopic conditions optimise the detection of visual function loss in drivers with simulated media opacity.
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.
- Impact of contrast sensitivity on driving behaviors in individuals with moderate-to-severe glaucoma.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Observational
- Energy efficiency of quasi-monochromatic LEDs for road lighting under mesopic vision.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Self-perceived far vision quality and night driving difficulties are not related to night myopia or visual acuity.PloS one · 2026Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Drivers have different visual demands across varying contrast and luminance conditions. However, vision assessments for driving are typically conducted under photopic conditions. This study investigated the sensitivity of photopic and mesopic conditions to detect contrast sensitivity (CS) loss in drivers with simulated media opacities. CS was measured in forty-seven healthy drivers aged 18-50 years (mean ± SD: 25.5 ± 6.5) under photopic and mesopic-adapted luminance levels with the Pelli-Robson chart and the Mesotest II (without glare). Media opacities were simulated using white-opacity containing Lee Fog filters (1-5) and CS measured in a randomised order. A significant (p < 0.001) reduction in photopic CS (logCS) was measured with the Pelli-Robson chart only when media opacity was simulated with Fog filter 5 (1.53 ± 0.15, 2.8 triplets reduction) compared to baseline (1.95 ± 0.03). Mean mesopic CS demonstrated a significant (all p < 0.001) reduction from baseline (1.67 ± 0.14) for Fog filters 3 (1.4 triplets, 1.45 ± 0.16), 4 (2.4 triplets, 1.31 ± 0.14) and 5 (4.3 triplets, 1.02 ± 0.15). For Mesotest II, only Fog filter 5 produced a significant reduction (0.10 ± 0.09; p < 0.001) in mean mesopic CS from baseline (0.30 ± 0.01). Mesopic CS is more vulnerable to different levels of simulated media opacity, hence should be considered clinically when assessing visual function in older drivers at risk of media opacity.
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.