ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2025
Letter contrast sensitivity validation.
Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Differences in Contrast Sensitivity Measurement With Letters and Gratings.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- Letter contrast sensitivity validation.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeContrast sensitivity (CS) is an important tool for evaluating functional vision. The Ocular Technology Group-International Vision Suite computerised letter CS test can evaluate multiple spatial frequencies, assessing the entire CS function. This clinical study validated the letter and sinusoidal CS methods by determining their repeatability using multiple spatial frequency settings and different lighting conditions.
methodsThe single-arm, prospective study compared the repeatability of CS measurements at two separate visits using three methods: computerised letter CS, computerised sinusoidal CS (M&S Technologies) and printed sinusoidal CS (VectorVision). Measurements were performed under photopic (without glare) or mesopic (with or without glare) conditions. Repeatability was assessed in 20 participants by comparing the mean and 95% CI of the difference between the measurements.
resultsTest variance was significantly lower for letter CS compared with the M&S or VectorVision instruments at most spatial frequencies. Letter CS measurements had a substantially lower precision-to-tolerance ratio compared with the M&S or VectorVision and required the smallest estimated sample size to achieve a precision-to-tolerance ratio of 0.25.
conclusionsOverall, the computerised letter method for assessing CS function was highly repeatable and had significantly lower test variance when compared with either of the sinusoidal instruments.
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.