Cargando…

Comparison of Two Different Contrast Sensitivity Testing Methods in Patients with Low Vision

PURPOSE: To assess the agreement between two different contrast testing modalities using the index of contrast sensitivity (ICS) in patients with low vision. METHODS: Thirty-eight patients with low vision were included in the study. Contrast sensitivity (CS) was measured binocularly with both the Ve...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Altinbay, Deniz, Sahli, Esra, Idil, Aysun
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9128427/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35620371
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/joco.joco_147_21
_version_ 1784712558839595008
author Altinbay, Deniz
Sahli, Esra
Idil, Aysun
author_facet Altinbay, Deniz
Sahli, Esra
Idil, Aysun
author_sort Altinbay, Deniz
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To assess the agreement between two different contrast testing modalities using the index of contrast sensitivity (ICS) in patients with low vision. METHODS: Thirty-eight patients with low vision were included in the study. Contrast sensitivity (CS) was measured binocularly with both the Vector vision-standardized CS test (CSV-1000E, Vector Vision Co, Greenville, Ohio, USA) and the MonPack 3 (Metrovision, France) after refractive correction for each participant. Based on the data from the two tests, the ICS was calculated. The Bland–Altman technique was used to evaluate the agreement between ICSs obtained from different test methods. RESULTS: Range of best corrected visual acuity was 0.50–1.00 logMAR. According to the median logCS values, CS values were highest at 3 cycles per degree (cpd) for the CSV-1000E test and at 1.5 cpd for the Metrovision MonPack 3 test. The median ICS for CSV-1000E was −0.22 (95(th) percentile 4.75), and the median ICS for Metrovision MonPack 3 was 0.08 (95(th) percentile 1.65). The mean difference was 0.655 (between −3.82 and 5.13) within limits of agreement (LoA). The difference and mean values between the two CS test measurements were found to be within LoA range. CONCLUSIONS: An agreement was found between the Metrovision MonPack 3 test and the standard CSV-1000E test results in patients with visual impairment. However, the agreement range was within very wide limits. Therefore, it was thought that they may not be used interchangeability in clinical practice.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9128427
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91284272022-05-25 Comparison of Two Different Contrast Sensitivity Testing Methods in Patients with Low Vision Altinbay, Deniz Sahli, Esra Idil, Aysun J Curr Ophthalmol Original Article PURPOSE: To assess the agreement between two different contrast testing modalities using the index of contrast sensitivity (ICS) in patients with low vision. METHODS: Thirty-eight patients with low vision were included in the study. Contrast sensitivity (CS) was measured binocularly with both the Vector vision-standardized CS test (CSV-1000E, Vector Vision Co, Greenville, Ohio, USA) and the MonPack 3 (Metrovision, France) after refractive correction for each participant. Based on the data from the two tests, the ICS was calculated. The Bland–Altman technique was used to evaluate the agreement between ICSs obtained from different test methods. RESULTS: Range of best corrected visual acuity was 0.50–1.00 logMAR. According to the median logCS values, CS values were highest at 3 cycles per degree (cpd) for the CSV-1000E test and at 1.5 cpd for the Metrovision MonPack 3 test. The median ICS for CSV-1000E was −0.22 (95(th) percentile 4.75), and the median ICS for Metrovision MonPack 3 was 0.08 (95(th) percentile 1.65). The mean difference was 0.655 (between −3.82 and 5.13) within limits of agreement (LoA). The difference and mean values between the two CS test measurements were found to be within LoA range. CONCLUSIONS: An agreement was found between the Metrovision MonPack 3 test and the standard CSV-1000E test results in patients with visual impairment. However, the agreement range was within very wide limits. Therefore, it was thought that they may not be used interchangeability in clinical practice. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2022-04-16 /pmc/articles/PMC9128427/ /pubmed/35620371 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/joco.joco_147_21 Text en Copyright: © 2022 Journal of Current Ophthalmology https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Altinbay, Deniz
Sahli, Esra
Idil, Aysun
Comparison of Two Different Contrast Sensitivity Testing Methods in Patients with Low Vision
title Comparison of Two Different Contrast Sensitivity Testing Methods in Patients with Low Vision
title_full Comparison of Two Different Contrast Sensitivity Testing Methods in Patients with Low Vision
title_fullStr Comparison of Two Different Contrast Sensitivity Testing Methods in Patients with Low Vision
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Two Different Contrast Sensitivity Testing Methods in Patients with Low Vision
title_short Comparison of Two Different Contrast Sensitivity Testing Methods in Patients with Low Vision
title_sort comparison of two different contrast sensitivity testing methods in patients with low vision
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9128427/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35620371
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/joco.joco_147_21
work_keys_str_mv AT altinbaydeniz comparisonoftwodifferentcontrastsensitivitytestingmethodsinpatientswithlowvision
AT sahliesra comparisonoftwodifferentcontrastsensitivitytestingmethodsinpatientswithlowvision
AT idilaysun comparisonoftwodifferentcontrastsensitivitytestingmethodsinpatientswithlowvision