ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2025
Arabic Reading Performance With a Chromatic Acuity Chart.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Purpose: This study compared the reading performance for Arabic text defined by chromatic and achromatic contrast to understand better how chromatic contrast affects reading of normally sighted individuals and to establish a baseline for determining whether patients have a selective red-green chromatic sensitivity loss. Method: Reading performance for Arabic text was accessed by examining maximum reading speed (MRS), reading acuity (RA), critical print size (CPS), and the Reading Accessibility Index (ACC) using three near-point charts. The charts were the black-on-white Balsam Alabdulkader-Leat (BAL) chart, a red-on-green chart, and a gray-on-gray chart with a background luminance equal to the chromatic chart. Results: The MRSs were significantly different (P = 0.03), with the red-on-green chart having a slightly higher value than the BAL chart. The ACC was lower for the BAL chart than the red-on-green and gray charts (P = 0.003). However, RA for the BAL chart was better, and the CPS was smaller relative to the red-on-green chart (P < 0.05) and gray chart (P < 0.001). Individuals with red-green color vision deficiencies had poorer RA and larger CPS on the red-on-green chart relative to the achromatic charts. Conclusions: Although the MRS and ACC of the chromatic chart were significantly higher, the difference was not clinically important. The result that the MRS was similar for all three charts confirmed earlier findings that MRS is similar if text contrast is sufficiently above threshold. The lower RA and corresponding larger CPS for the red-on-green and gray charts were due to their lower background luminance and lower contrast.
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.