PURPOSE: To explore the reliability of the Spaeth/Richman Contrast Sensitivity (SPARCS) test and to assess the contrast sensitivity (CS) distribution among subjects with various refractive errors. METHODS: Cross-sectional study. Ninety-three individuals (182 eyes) with varying amounts of refractive error were included in this study and divided into six groups according to their spherical equivalent. CS was evaluated using Pelli-Robson (PR) and SPARCS assessments. Each eye was tested twice with both measurements. Outcomes included the correlations of PR and SPARCS scores, the test-retest agreement of the two measurements and the limits of agreement between tests of CS measurements. The distribution of CS among the six groups was compared. RESULTS: Pearson correlation analysis showed statistically significant correlations between SPARCS and PR scores (p<0.001). Reliability analysis showed that SPARCS had better test-retest agreement than PR, with SPARCS exhibiting a higher intraclass coefficient (ICC=0.635). Bland-Altman plots showed that the mean difference of measurements was close to 0 for both CS measurements. Among the six refractive groups, there were no significant differences in CS scores with either measurement. CONCLUSIONS: SPARCS appears to be a reliable assessment for CS. The difference in CS among myopes, emmetropes and hyperopes wearing their habitual correction was statistically insignificant in this study. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT01300949, post results. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
PURPOSE: To explore the reliability of the Spaeth/Richman Contrast Sensitivity (SPARCS) test and to assess the contrast sensitivity (CS) distribution among subjects with various refractive errors. METHODS: Cross-sectional study. Ninety-three individuals (182 eyes) with varying amounts of refractive error were included in this study and divided into six groups according to their spherical equivalent. CS was evaluated using Pelli-Robson (PR) and SPARCS assessments. Each eye was tested twice with both measurements. Outcomes included the correlations of PR and SPARCS scores, the test-retest agreement of the two measurements and the limits of agreement between tests of CS measurements. The distribution of CS among the six groups was compared. RESULTS: Pearson correlation analysis showed statistically significant correlations between SPARCS and PR scores (p<0.001). Reliability analysis showed that SPARCS had better test-retest agreement than PR, with SPARCS exhibiting a higher intraclass coefficient (ICC=0.635). Bland-Altman plots showed that the mean difference of measurements was close to 0 for both CS measurements. Among the six refractive groups, there were no significant differences in CS scores with either measurement. CONCLUSIONS: SPARCS appears to be a reliable assessment for CS. The difference in CS among myopes, emmetropes and hyperopes wearing their habitual correction was statistically insignificant in this study. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT01300949, post results. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
Authors: Sarah Amanullah; Joseph Okudolo; Kamran Rahmatnejad; Shuai-Chun Lin; Sheryl S Wizov; Remy S Manzi Muhire; Lisa A Hark; Cindy X Zheng; Tingting Zhan; George L Spaeth Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 3.117