ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2023
Evaluation of the SpotChecks contrast sensitivity test in children.
Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2023. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Contrast Sensitivity and Low-Contrast Visual Acuity in Children With Low Vision.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2026Article
- Article
- Assessing Contrast Sensitivity Function in CRB1-Retinopathies: Exploring Child-Friendly Measures of Visual Function.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- Pushing the envelope: the feasibility of using a mailed contrast sensitivity test to prioritise cataract waiting lists.Eye (London, England) · 2024Article
- The effect of filters and varying illumination on contrast sensitivity in eyes with moderate to severe visual impairment.International ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Evaluation of the SpotChecks contrast sensitivity test in children.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2023Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to determine intrasession repeatability of a worksheet style contrast sensitivity test (SpotChecks) in children and agreement with an established contrast sensitivity test (Pelli-Robson).
methodsForty-three children aged 4 to 12 years participated in this single visit study that included two administrations of the SpotChecks binocularly, a single administration of the Pelli-Robson test and other measures of visual performance such as high-contrast visual acuity. Test order was randomised, and participants wore their habitual correction (39 unaided, 4 wearing glasses) for testing. Bland-Altman plots were used to assess the test-retest repeatability of SpotChecks and its agreement with the Pelli-Robson test. Multiple linear regressions were performed to evaluate whether contrast sensitivity was related to participant characteristics such as age, sex and near binocular visual acuity.
resultsThe mean difference in log contrast sensitivity (logCS) between two administrations of the SpotChecks was 0.01, with a coefficient of repeatability (1.96*SD of differences) of 0.14 logCS. The mean difference between SpotChecks and Pelli-Robson was 0.00 logCS with 95% limits of agreement of -0.19 to +0.20. For both tests, a statistically significant increase in logCS was associated with age (slopes were 0.02 logCS/year, p < 0.001 and 0.01 logCS/year, p = 0.02 for the SpotChecks and Pelli-Robson tests, respectively).
conclusionsThe SpotChecks test shows good intrasession repeatability and excellent agreement with the Pelli-Robson test in children. Contrast sensitivity showed an increase in logCS with age in children for both tests.
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.