ArticleEye (London, England)2024
Pushing the envelope: the feasibility of using a mailed contrast sensitivity test to prioritise cataract waiting lists.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2024. 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.
- Contrast Sensitivity Impairment in Diabetic Retinopathy: Clinical and Structural Correlates.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Article
- Eyecatcher 3.0 - Validating the Use of "Smart Glasses" as a Low-Cost, Portable Method of Assessing Visual Fields.Translational vision science & technology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCataract waiting lists are growing globally. Pragmatic, cost-effective methods are required to prioritise the most urgent cases. Here we investigate the feasibility of using a third-party pen-and-paper contrast sensitivity, CS, test (SpotChecks
methodsPen-and-paper CS tests were mailed to 233 people waiting for a cataract assessment, along with a prepaid return envelope (cross-sectional study). Response rates were tabulated (stratified by age, sex and socioeconomic status), and test scores analysed to see how well the home tests predicted which eyes were listed subsequently for surgery. A subset of patients (N = 39) also underwent in-person follow-up testing, to confirm the accuracy of the home data.
resultsForty-six percent of patients responded (216 eyes). No gross differences were observed between respondents and non-respondents, either in terms of age, sex, socioeconomic status, or geographic location (all P > 0.05). The home-test CS scores predicted which eyes were subsequently listed for surgery, with an AUROC {±CI
conclusionsMailing patients pen-and-paper CS tests may be a feasible, 'low-tech' way of prioritising patients on cataract waiting lists.
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.