AIM: To investigate the repeatability and sensitivity of two commonly used sine wave patch charts for contrast sensitivity (CS) measurement in cataract and refractive surgery outcomes. METHODS: The Vistech CS chart and its descendant, the Functional Acuity Contrast Test (FACT), were administered in three experiments: (1) Post-LASIK and age matched normal subjects; (2) Preoperative cataract surgery and age matched normal subjects; (3) Test-retest repeatability data in normal subjects. RESULTS: Contrast sensitivity was similar between post-LASIK and control groups and between the Vistech and FACT charts. The percentage of subjects one month post-LASIK achieving the maximum score across spatial frequencies (1.5, 3, 6, 12, 18 cycles per degree) were (50, 33, 13, 13, 0 respectively) for FACT, but only (0, 0, 13, 4, 0 respectively) for Vistech. A small number of cataract patients also registered the maximum score on the FACT, but up to 60% did not achieve the minimum score. Test-retest intraclass correlation coefficients varied from 0.28 to 0.64 for Vistech and 0.18 to 0.45 for FACT. Bland-Altman limits of agreement across spatial frequencies were between +/-0.30 and +/-0.85 logCS for Vistech, and +/-0.30 to +/-0.75 logCS for FACT. DISCUSSION: The Vistech was confirmed as providing poorly repeatable data. The FACT chart, likely because of a smaller step size, showed slightly better retest agreement. However, the reduced range of scores on the chart due to the smaller step size led to ceiling (post-LASIK) and floor (cataract) effects. These problems could mask subtle differences between groups of patients with near normal visual function as found post-refractive or cataract surgery. The Vistech and FACT CS charts are ill suited for refractive or cataract surgery outcomes research.
AIM: To investigate the repeatability and sensitivity of two commonly used sine wave patch charts for contrast sensitivity (CS) measurement in cataract and refractive surgery outcomes. METHODS: The Vistech CS chart and its descendant, the Functional Acuity Contrast Test (FACT), were administered in three experiments: (1) Post-LASIK and age matched normal subjects; (2) Preoperative cataract surgery and age matched normal subjects; (3) Test-retest repeatability data in normal subjects. RESULTS: Contrast sensitivity was similar between post-LASIK and control groups and between the Vistech and FACT charts. The percentage of subjects one month post-LASIK achieving the maximum score across spatial frequencies (1.5, 3, 6, 12, 18 cycles per degree) were (50, 33, 13, 13, 0 respectively) for FACT, but only (0, 0, 13, 4, 0 respectively) for Vistech. A small number of cataractpatients also registered the maximum score on the FACT, but up to 60% did not achieve the minimum score. Test-retest intraclass correlation coefficients varied from 0.28 to 0.64 for Vistech and 0.18 to 0.45 for FACT. Bland-Altman limits of agreement across spatial frequencies were between +/-0.30 and +/-0.85 logCS for Vistech, and +/-0.30 to +/-0.75 logCS for FACT. DISCUSSION: The Vistech was confirmed as providing poorly repeatable data. The FACT chart, likely because of a smaller step size, showed slightly better retest agreement. However, the reduced range of scores on the chart due to the smaller step size led to ceiling (post-LASIK) and floor (cataract) effects. These problems could mask subtle differences between groups of patients with near normal visual function as found post-refractive or cataract surgery. The Vistech and FACT CS charts are ill suited for refractive or cataract surgery outcomes research.
Authors: M K Mallah; P M Hart; M McClure; M R Stevenson; G Silvestri; S T White; U Chakravarthy Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 1.973
Authors: Alan Sugar; Christopher J Rapuano; William W Culbertson; David Huang; Gary A Varley; Peter J Agapitos; Vincent P de Luise; Douglas D Koch Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: L T Chylack; G Jakubicz; B Rosner; P Khu; J Libman; J K Wolfe; N Padhye; J Friend Journal: J Cataract Refract Surg Date: 1993-05 Impact factor: 3.351
Authors: Alice Cronin-Golomb; Matthew S Panizzon; Michael J Lyons; Carol E Franz; Michael D Grant; Kristen C Jacobson; Seth A Eisen; Thomas M Laudate; William S Kremen Journal: Vision Res Date: 2007-06-29 Impact factor: 1.886