ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
Contrast sensitivity before and after refractive error correction among refractive error patients in Hawassa, Sidama, Ethiopia 2023.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluating the effects of trifocals and extended depth of focus intraocular lens implantation on stereopsis and contrast sensitivity in cataract patients.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Trial
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
backgroundContrast sensitivity is an important measure of vision quality. Risk of falling injury is strongly associated with poor contrast sensitivity compared with poor near- and distance visual acuity. Since good visual acuity is not necessarily associated with good visual performance in the "real world" it is important to consider contrast sensitivity when prescribing corrective lenses. There is limited evidence on how refractive error and its correction affect contrast sensitivity in the study area. Therefore, this study is important to understand how refractive correction affects contrast sensitivity, which is important baseline information for prescribing refractive error correction. OBJECTIVE OF THIS STUDY: This study aimed to measure the mean difference in contrast sensitivity with and without corrective lenses in patients with refractive error.
methodsObjective and subjective refractions were done for each patient, then Pelli- Robson contrast sensitivity was measured for them using computer based Pelli-Robson chart at 1 m. Pelli- Robson contrast sensitivity value (Log CS) with and without corrective lenses were recorded for each study participant. The collected data were checked for completeness and analyzed using SPSS 26. Descriptive analyses, independent sample t-tests, and one-way ANOVA were performed to compare CS means; the findings are presented using tables and pie charts. A P-value of ≤ 0.05 was used to indicate statistical significance.
resultsOne hundred sixty-two patients attending refraction clinics participated in this study with response rate 98.19% of which 51.9% were male. The mean age of the participants was 34.28 ± 12.79 (SD). The mean contrast sensitivity increased from 1.29 ± 0.35 (SD) to1.51 ± 0.28 (SD) LogCS units with refractive correction (p = 0.000). There is no significant difference in contrast sensitivity between the types of refractive errors. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Uncorrected refractive can affect contrast sensitivity; therefore, proper refractive correction is essential to improve visual acuity and contrast sensitivity.
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.