Arq Bras Oftalmol
abo
Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia
Arq. Bras. Oftalmol.
0004-2749
1678-2925
Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia
RESUMO
Objetivo:
Analisar a reprodutibilidade intrassessão e intersessão das medidas de sensibilidade ao contraste (CS) em pacientes com degeneração macular relacionada à idade (AMD), glaucoma e catarata.
Método:
As medidas de CS foram feitas pelo OPTEC-Funcional Visão Analyzer (FVA), que utiliza um sistema padronizado e fechado de avaliação da acuidade visual. Medidas em pacientes com AMD, glaucoma, catarata e nos controles saudáveis foram repetidas no prazo de 30 minutos (intrassessão) em duas visitas (intersessão), separadas por uma semana a um mês. A confiabilidade e correlação teste-reteste foram calculados por meio do coeficiente de correlação intraclasse (ICC) e coeficiente de reprodutibilidade (COR).
Resultados:
Noventa olhos de 90 indivíduos foram recrutados com acuidade visual de 0,17 logMAR ou melhor em catarata e 0,00 logMAR nos outros grupos. A confiabilidade da CS na primeira visita dos grupos normal, glaucoma, catarata e AMD foram, respectivamente, ICC 0,87; 0,90; 0,76; 0,69, e COR 0,24; 0,20; 0,38; 0,25. Os índices de confiabilidade foram significativamente melhorados nas segundas visitas, exceto no grupo glaucoma. Houve um efeito chão aceitável e nenhum efeito teto em frequências mais altas nos grupos glaucoma e AMD.
Conclusões:
Em indivíduos com boa acuidade visual, o sistema FVA de avaliação da CS é útil e apresenta boa confiabilidade, como mostrado pelas análises de ICC e COR. Por não apresentar efeito teto, este sistema parece ser benéfico para a avaliação das alterações precoces de CS, especialmente no glaucoma e AMD.
INTRODUCTION
Contrast sensitivity (CS) is the ability to recognize small differences in luminance or differentiate two objects from each other and the background(1,2). CS is an important part of functional vision that is related to many activities of daily living and measuring it is one of the best ways to assess vision quality(3-5). Despite having normal visual acuity measured by a Snellen chart, the satisfaction with the results of refractive surgery may vary relative to CS, and some eye diseases cause isolated loss of CS(4,6-8). Snellen acuity tests have a limited ability to detect fine changes in contrast because high contrast letters (black on white) are used(9). Also, recent advances in knowledge about refractive surgery, optical tissues, and glaucoma and macular diseases revealed that the Snellen acuity test is inadequate for early detection of eye diseases and measurement of functional vision(6,10-12). CS decreases in all stages of glaucoma and age-related macular degeneration (AMD) have been documented using different testing methods(7,12-15). Glaucoma, cataract, and AMD patients suffer from problems in vision-related activities of daily living and the inability to recognize targets in real world, which can be better identified by CS tests than by visual acuity tests(14,16-18). The increasing importance of visual quality and the need for accurate measurement of visual acuity has led to more interest in CS tests(12,19-21).
There are several clinical tests for measuring CS with letters or gratings(5,22-26). A limitation of CS tests is low reliability associated with varying environmental conditions and the subjective nature of the tests. In particular, CS tests that use charts may be affected by inadequate or uneven lighting, fading, the subject's learning curve, and reflections(2,3). The Functional Acuity Contrast Test (FACT) assesses five spatial frequencies (1.5, 3, 6, 12, and 18 cycles per degree (cpd)) and 9 levels of contrast for each frequency. FACT uses a small increment (0.15 log unit) and a forced-choice method with three options(2). Although the FACT test has greater reliability compared with other CS testing methods, administration of the CS test in a closed system, with charts on the screen inside the device, with a Functional Visual Acuity (FVA) device has additional advantages. These advantages include the ability to display contrast charts in a random order and the administration of the test with standardized lighting, which is difficult to maintain under other conditions(3,27). A CS test is expected to have a good reliability to differentiate a small loss or detect real progression, which can be better achieved by a closed test system, which has inherently stable testing conditions.
To the best of our knowledge, there has been little research published about the comparative reliability of these devices for healthy controls and patients with eye disease. This study investigates the repeatability of the closed system FVA CS test in control subjects and in patients with glaucoma, cataracts and good Snellen visual acuity, or age-related macular degeneration (AMD).
METHODS
This prospective, observational study included patients with glaucoma, cataracts, or AMD and healthy control subjects. All subjects were recruited from the Eye Clinic at Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants following a comprehensive explanation of the study. The research was approved by the local clinical research ethics committee and complied with the tenets of the Helsinki Declaration.
The study included subjects between 40 and 70 years old to facilitate enrollment of subjects with best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 0.00 logMAR for the groups without cataracts. One eye of each patient was included in the study. Subjects were not eligible to be included if they had ocular diseases other than glaucoma, cataracts, or AMD, refractive error <-3 or >3 diopters (D) sphere or >2.00 D cylinder, or a history of previous eye surgery or laser treatment. Patients with psychiatric or neurologic disorders, poor compliance during the CS test, or who used systemic or ocular medications could affect CS were excluded. All patients underwent an ophthalmic examination, including auto refractometry, BCVA evaluation, anterior segment biomicroscopy, funduscopy, and IOP, measured with a Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT).
The glaucoma group included subjects who were diagnosed with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) or normotensive glaucoma (NTG). The inclusion criteria for patients with POAG were the characteristic visual field loss, glaucomatous optic neuropathy (having rim thinning or notching, retinal nerve fiber layer defects, or disc hemorrhage and disc asymmetry between the eyes ≥0.2), and intraocular pressure (IOP) >21 mmHg. The inclusion criteria for patients with NTG were visual field loss, glaucomatous optic neuropathy, and IOP ≤21 mmHg. Glaucomatous visual field defects, which were repeatable in at least two standard automated perimetry evaluations, included at least one of the following: nasal step, arcuate scotoma, paracentral scotoma, or temporal wedge. All glaucoma patients had a grade 3 or 4 open angle according to the Shaffer Classification System(29) and a mean deviation no worse than -6 dB.
In the cataract group, only eyes with a BCVA of 0.17 logMAR or better and a nuclear sclerosis of less than grade 2 were included. Nuclear sclerosis was graded by the slit-lamp method according to the Lens Opacities Classification System III(28). The inclusion criteria for the AMD group were retinal pigment epithelial abnormalities in the form of hypopigmentation or hyperpigmentation, without evidence of active choroidal neovascularization, and no prior treatment with any anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections. The control subjects had normal findings on a comprehensive eye examination (including anterior segment biomicroscopy and fundoscopy of the macula and optic nerve) and IOP <21 mmHg.
A closed-system CS testing device, the OPTEC-FVA (Stereo Optical Co, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA), was used to examine CS values under daytime without glare. Figure 1 shows the FVA CS testing device. The FVA has rotating slide packages for other visual functions, including visual acuity, disability glare, and stereo and color vision. The CS testing device contains the FACT chart, which uses three orientations for the gratings: oriented vertically or tilted 15º to the right or left. Subjects identified the orientation of each grating and were required to guess when they could not determine the orientation of gratings.
Figure 1
The functional vision analyzer contrast sensitivity test device.
The CS testing device controls light levels with sensors to achieve consistent conditions for each test. This device supplies a target luminance level of 85 cd/m2 for daytime conditions in compliance with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). It evaluates spatial frequencies using sine-wave grating charts of 1.5, 3, 6, 12, and 18 cpd. Figure 2 presents the sine-wave gratings charts for the frequencies that the CS testing device used. Contrast was defined according to the Michelson formula (C = [Lmaximum − Lminimum]/[Lmaximum + Lminimum], C: Contrast, L: Luminance)(2). CS was measured during two sessions separated by at least one week and up to one month (intersession). At each session, two measurements taken 30 minutes apart (intrasession). All tests were performed with the optimum refractive correction and a natural pupil. All the subjects performed the CS test for the first time during our study, and each test lasted approximately 10 minutes. The CS measurements were obtained by a single operator who was blinded to the patient's group.
Figure 2
Sine-wave grating charts in the view-in contrast sensitivity test device.
All the CS values were converted to logarithmic values. The test-retest reliability of the CS test was examined using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the coefficient of repeatability (COR) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). The ICC was calculated with absolute agreement. The COR is calculated as 1.96 times the standard deviation of the difference between the test and retest scores. An ICC value of 1.0 and a COR value of 0.0 represent perfect test-retest reliability(2). Reliability analyses were performed within individual sessions and between sessions for all groups. Possible floor and ceiling effects were evaluated by calculating the percentage of subjects with lowest and highest test scores, respectively, for each of the four tests at each spatial frequency and within each group.
Spearman rank-order correlations were used to investigate the possible correlation between age and changes in CS score. The Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney U-tests were used to compare CS scores between groups. The Bonferroni correction, which applies a statistical significance level of 1/n times the "p" value (n= the number of comparisons), was used to test for multiple comparisons to ensure that an appropriate level of significance was applied to the individual tests(30). Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software (Windows version 19.0; SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA), and statistical significance was defined as p<0.05.
RESULTS
The analysis was included 90 eyes of 90 Caucasian subjects, including healthy control (n=30; mean ± standard deviation age 47.1 ± 6.7 years; 15 males), glaucoma (n=13; age 59.6 ± 4.1 years; 8 males), cataract (n=29; age 56.3 ± 5.2 years; 14 males), and AMD (n=18; age 59.9 ± 4.6 years; 9 males) groups.
The test-retest reliability of the CS test, including ICC and COR, is shown in table 1. The reliability of the CS test in the control, glaucoma, cataract, and AMD groups were good at the first session (ICC: 0.87 [95% CI 0.84 -0.9], 0.90 [CI 0.84 -0.96], 0.76 [CI 0.65 -0.87], and 0.69 [CI 0.59 -0.79], respectively; and COR 0.24, 0.20, 0.38, and 0.25, respectively). However, at the second session, statistically significant increases were found in the reliability of the CS test, except in the glaucoma group (ICC: 0.92 [CI 0.88 -0.96], p=0.042; 0.93 [CI 0.88 -0.98], p=0.461; 0.90 [CI 0.86 -0.94], p=0.043; and 0.86 [CI 0.82 -0.9], p=0.043; and COR of 0.16, 0.16, 0.24, and 0.21 in the control, glaucoma, cataract, and AMD groups, respectively).
Table 1
Test-retest reliability of the contrast sensitivity test in the groups of control, glaucoma, cataract, and age-related macular degeneration groups
Spatial
1st session
2nd session
Intersession
frequency (cpd)
ICC
COR
ICC
COR
p-value
ICC
COR
Control group
1.5
0.86
0.19
0.91
0.13
0.92
0.14
3
0.86
0.18
0.89
0.16
0.95
0.10
6
0.83
0.23
0.87
0.20
0.042*a
0.91
0.16
12
0.91
0.23
0.96
0.15
0.043*b
0.94
0.18
18
0.87
0.38
0.96
0.18
0.94
0.23
Mean
0.87
0.24
0.92
0.16
0.93
0.16
Glaucoma group
1.5
0.92
0.14
0.83
0.22
0.96
0.10
3
0.80
0.24
0.92
0.15
0.95
0.11
6
0.85
0.22
0.94
0.14
0.461a
0.86
0.20
12
0.95
0.20
0.97
0.11
0.194b
0.96
0.15
18
0.98
0.18
0.98
0.18
0.98
0.19
Mean
0.90
0.20
0.93
0.16
0.94
0.15
Cataract group
1.5
0.86
0.22
0.88
0.17
0.94
0.14
3
0.84
0.23
0.94
0.14
0.96
0.10
6
0.86
0.25
0.93
0.18
0.043*a
0.96
0.14
12
0.56
0.56
0.85
0.37
0.043*b
0.81
0.34
18
0.70
0.67
0.92
0.33
0.96
0.22
Mean
0.76
0.38
0.90
0.24
0.93
0.19
AMD group
1.5
0.72
0.17
0.88
0.14
0.93
0.09
3
0.74
0.19
0.84
0.16
0.91
0.10
6
0.62
0.23
0.80
0.23
0.043*a
0.88
0.13
12
0.83
0.18
0.90
0.20
0.141b
0.90
0.15
18
0.56
0.50
0.90
0.32
0.68
0.42
Mean
0.69
0.25
0.86
0.21
0.86
0.18
AMD= age-related macular degeneration; ICC= Intraclass correlation coefficient; COR= coefficient of repeatability; cpd= cycle per degree.
*
statistically significant p<0.05.
a
p-value of Wilcoxon signed-rank test for ICC of 1st and 2nd sessions.
b
p-value of Wilcoxon signed-rank test for COR of 1st and 2nd sessions.
Figure 3 illustrates the mean CS score for all groups as a function of spatial frequency. The CS scores for the AMD group were significantly lower than for those in the control group at all frequencies (significance of Bonferroni correction 0.012, p<0.001). In the glaucoma group, except at a frequency of 1.5 cpd, the CS scores were significantly lower compared with control group (significance of Bonferroni correction 0.012, p<0.012). There was also a statistically significant correlation between age and changes in CS scores of subjects at all spatial frequencies (1st session p<0.001, r=-0.399, -0.484, -0.484, -0.386, and -0.395 at 1.5, 3, 6, 12, and 18 cpd, respectively; 2nd session p<0.001, r=-0.424, -0.450, -0.495, -0.432, and -0.444 at 1.5, 3, 6, 12, and 18 cpd, respectively).
Figure 3
Contrast sensitivity for the control, glaucoma, cataract, and age-related macular degeneration (AMD) groups as a function of spatial frequency.
Table 2 summarizes the results of the analysis of possible floor and ceiling effects at each spatial frequency and for each group. There was a prominent floor effect at the highest frequency (18 cpd) in all groups. In healthy eyes, a floor effect, except in the second test, only occurred at 18 cpd. However, in the glaucoma group, the floor effect was greatest for the first two tests and decreased for the last CS tests. There was no ceiling effect in the glaucoma or AMD groups at any of the tested frequencies. In healthy and cataract eyes, a low ceiling effect (3.3%-10%), with a slight decrease during the last two tests, was detected.
Table 2
The floor and ceiling effect for each spatial frequency and group (measured by the percentage of maximum and minimum CS scores in the control (n=30), glaucoma (n=13), cataract (n=29), and AMD (n=18) groups)
Percentage with the minimum CS score for each spatial frequency (%)
Percentage with the maximum CS score for each spatial frequency (%)
Test
Group
1.5
3
6
12
18
1.5
3
6
12
18
1
Control
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.7
6.7
3.3
3.3
0.0
0.0
Glaucoma
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.7
46.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Cataract
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.6
25.0
7.1
3.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
AMD
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
Control
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.7
10.0
10.0
6.7
10.0
3.3
0.0
Glaucoma
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.7
38.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Cataract
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
28.6
3.6
7.1
10.7
0.0
0.0
AMD
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.6
22.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
Control
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.7
10.0
6.7
10.0
0.0
3.3
Glaucoma
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Cataract
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.6
25.0
0.0
0.0
7.1
3.6
0.0
AMD
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
Control
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.0
6.7
6.7
6.7
0.0
3.3
Glaucoma
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
23.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Cataract
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.1
32.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AMD
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.6
22.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AMD= age-related macular degeneration; CS= contrast sensitivity.
DISCUSSION
This study showed that the FVA CS test has good reliability, as shown by ICC and COR analysis. The CS test is useful for patients with good visual acuity who have healthy eyes without glaucoma, cataracts, or AMD. Although there are other commercially available CS tests using letters, symbols, or sine-wave gratings, these tests are not clearly standardized for performing a common CS evaluation such as visual field analyses(2,23). Sine-wave gratings permit sensitive testing of individual visual channels and are part of spatial frequency for evaluating CS function in vision science(12). The FACT chart also uses sine-wave gratings, which have been chosen at given luminance and glare levels for the ANSI by the United States Food and Drug Administration(5). Although the FACT chart is a modified version of the Vistech, it uses smaller increments (0.15 log units) and subjects must choose from three options. Previous CS studies with sine-wave gratings reported insufficient scores for reliability analyses (ICC 0.28-0.64 and COR 0.26-0.58)(2). Despite having poor reliability with FACT wall charts, closed systems using the standard FACT luminance and glare values were reported to exactly match the ANSI standards, thereby providing better reliability(3, 27). Hohberger et al.(27) reported average reliability coefficients of 0.80-0.96 for each cpd with an OPTEC 6500 CS test. Using the same device, Hong et al.(3) reported ICC 0.85 and COR 0.20, which are comparable to our results with the FVA closed system CS test (intersession ICC 0.86-0.94 and COR 0.16-0.19).
Previous studies with FACT charts in closed systems omitted any comparison with earlier and latter CS test scores that might have explained possible improvements in test reliability. We think that such comparisons are important to establish a reliable clinical application of the CS test. In this study, the mean ICCs of the closed system CS test were better at the second session (0.86-0.94) than the first session (0.69-0.90) in all groups. Furthermore, the CORs improved at the second session (first session 0.20-0.38; second session 0.16-0.24). There may be a learning effect, which possibly arises from cognitive abilities or getting familiar with the test procedure during the repeated tests. It has been reported that using letter charts for CS tests result in learning effects according to variable abilities to recognize letters. The FACT charts that use sine-wave gratings eliminate these problems(2,31). However, subjects high probability of correct guessing with the FACT charts, so repetitive tests are needed to reduce this effect(27,31). Subjects' responses may become more reliable after learning the FVA CS test procedure so it is important to conduct multiple CS tests to obtain more reliable clinical results.
It has been well documented that the spatial and temporal types of CS decrease in people with glaucoma(11,32,33). Grating CS tests are promising for the detection of early glaucoma and its progression(32,34). Klein et al.(17) suggested that spatial CS were a sensitive indicator of early glaucomatous loss in the presence of cataracts. Although visual acuity was good, the CS of the eyes with glaucoma was significantly less than among healthy subjects except at 1.5 cpd (p<0.012). This result was compatible with that previously reported by Onal et al.(7) using the FACT wall chart. The authors suggested that the FACT chart was useful for early diagnosis of patients with glaucoma, accompanied by a short-wavelength automated perimetry. This may be associated with early degeneration in the magnocellular ganglion cells, which are important for CS, in glaucoma(35).
The CS of eyes with AMD was worse than among healthy subjects at all frequencies (p<0.001), similar to previous studies(6,36). As there are limited options for treatment of AMD, early detection of the disease and prevention of progression are very important. Visual discomfort in performing daily activities often occurs in patients with AMD even though they have a BCVA of 0.00 logMAR on Snellen charts. This vision quality loss is seen in early AMD before any detectable retinal changes occur(18,37). CS reduction in AMD patients becomes more evident and uncomfortable under conditions of low illumination, which provides a low contrast environment(16).
It was reported previously that the closed system FACT chart had a lower ceiling effect than the wall chart test, which might increase its ability to detect small changes. In our study, no ceiling effect was observed in eyes with glaucoma or AMD using the FVA closed system CS test, and the ceiling effect was acceptable in healthy and cataract eyes(3). Even after a gap of at least one week between the first and second CS tests, the ceiling effect in normal and cataract eyes tended to decrease. These results suggest that the FACT chart in a closed system has the potential to detect small decreases in high CS scores in healthy, cataract, and AMD eyes and otherwise healthy eyes with early stages of glaucoma. A more pronounced floor-effect emerged in glaucoma and AMD eyes at higher frequencies, which may represent the effects of early retinal or ganglion cell defects on the loss of CS.
It is critical to know if the patients are affected by glaucoma, cataracts, or AMD in their daily lives when considering treatment options. CS has become more important for quality of life assessments, which have been receiving increase attention in recent years(37-39). CS is involved with differentiating low-contrast objects, such as human faces, and recognizing movement(37,40). Because of the close relationship between CS and the ability to perform activities of daily living, despite normal BCVA, CS testing is a useful clinical method to assess how ocular disease affects what patients can do. The present study found that FVA closed system CS evaluation provided reliable results with an easy method and standardized luminance.
It should be noted that there are several limitations of this study. The numbers of patients with eye disease and healthy controls were small. Reliability was evaluated by only two sessions with CS test each, so more sessions are required to strengthen the results. In addition, the interval between sessions varied from one week to one month.
CS measures visual quality and can provide detailed information by spatial frequency assessment. Thus, it can be used to detect early subclinical findings or changes during treatment for visual-system-related eye diseases. However, to differentiate healthy from abnormal characteristics and to detect real disease progression, the CS test must have strong clinical reliability. In this study, we found good reliability of the FVA closed system CS test in all groups and reliability improved during the second session. Therefore, to get more reliable results, repeated measurements are needed. Although, there was an acceptable floor-effect with the closed system test in patients with glaucoma and AMD, we found no ceiling effect; consequently, the view-in test has potential to detect fine changes at high frequencies.
In summary, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study reporting the repeatability of FACT test scores using a closed system in patients with AMD and glaucoma. Hopefully, the reliability of this FACT will encourage clinicians to incorporate contrast sensitivity into their thorough evaluation of the early changes that accompany glaucoma, cataract, and AMD.
Funding: No specific financial support was available for this study.
Approved by the following research ethics committee: Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University (#050. 99-151).
REFERENCES
1
1 Miller D, Schor P, Magnante P. Optics of the normal eye. In: Yanoff M, Duker JS, editor. Ophthalmology. China: Elsevier; 2014. p. 38-45.
Miller
D
Schor
P
Magnante
P
Optics of the normal eye
Yanoff
M
Duker
JS
Ophthalmology
China
Elsevier
2014
38
45
2
2 Richman J, Spaeth GL, Wirostko B. Contrast sensitivity basics and a critique of currently available tests. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013;39(7):1100-6.
Richman
J
Spaeth
GL
Wirostko
B
Contrast sensitivity basics and a critique of currently available tests
J Cataract Refract Surg
2013
39
7
1100
1106
3
3 Hong YT, Kim SW, Kim EK, Kim T. Contrast sensitivity measurement with 2 contrast sensitivity tests in normal eyes and eyes with cataract. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010; 36(4):547-52.
Hong
YT
Kim
SW
Kim
EK
Kim
T
Contrast sensitivity measurement with 2 contrast sensitivity tests in normal eyes and eyes with cataract
J Cataract Refract Surg
2010
36
4
547
552
4
4 Nielsen E, Hjortdal J. Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity after posterior lamellar keratoplasty. Acta Ophthalmol. 2012;90(8):756-60.
Nielsen
E
Hjortdal
J
Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity after posterior lamellar keratoplasty
Acta Ophthalmol
2012
90
8
756
760
5
5 Ginsburg AP. Contrast sensitivity: determining the visual quality and function of cataract, intraocular lenses and refractive surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2006;17(1):19-26.
Ginsburg
AP
Contrast sensitivity: determining the visual quality and function of cataract, intraocular lenses and refractive surgery
Curr Opin Ophthalmol
2006
17
1
19
26
6
6 Aslam T, Mahmood S, Balaskas K, Patton N, Tanawade R, Tan S, et al. Repeatability of visual function measures in age-related macular degeneration. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2014;252(2):201-6.
Aslam
T
Mahmood
S
Balaskas
K
Patton
N
Tanawade
R
Tan
S
Repeatability of visual function measures in age-related macular degeneration
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol
2014
252
2
201
206
7
7 Onal S, Yenice O, Cakir S, Temel A. FACT contrast sensitivity as a diagnostic tool in glaucoma: FACT contrast sensitivity in glaucoma. Int Ophthalmol. 2008;28(6):407-12.
Onal
S
Yenice
O
Cakir
S
Temel
A
FACT contrast sensitivity as a diagnostic tool in glaucoma: FACT contrast sensitivity in glaucoma
Int Ophthalmol
2008
28
6
407
412
8
8 Zhang J, Zhou YH, Li R, Tian L. Visual performance after conventional LASIK and wavefront-guided LASIK with iris-registration: results at 1 year. Int J Ophthalmol. 2013; 6(4):498-504.
Zhang
J
Zhou
YH
Li
R
Tian
L
Visual performance after conventional LASIK and wavefront-guided LASIK with iris-registration: results at 1 year
Int J Ophthalmol
2013
6
4
498
504
9
9 Ginsburg AP. Contrast sensitivity and functional vision. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 2003; 43(2):5-15.
Ginsburg
AP
Contrast sensitivity and functional vision
Int Ophthalmol Clin
2003
43
2
5
15
10
10 Lahav K, Levkovitch-Verbin H, Belkin M, Glovinsky Y, Polat U. Reduced mesopic and photopic foveal contrast sensitivity in glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2011;129(1):16-22.
Lahav
K
Levkovitch-Verbin
H
Belkin
M
Glovinsky
Y
Polat
U
Reduced mesopic and photopic foveal contrast sensitivity in glaucoma
Arch Ophthalmol
2011
129
1
16
22
11
11 Yenice O, Onal S, Incili B, Temel A, Afşar N, Tanrıdag. Assessment of spatial-contrast function and short-wavelength sensitivity deficits in patients with migraine. Eye (Lond). 2007;21(2):218-23.
Yenice
O
Onal
S
Incili
B
Temel
A
Afşar
N
Tanrıdag
Assessment of spatial-contrast function and short-wavelength sensitivity deficits in patients with migraine
Eye
Lond
2007
21
2
218
223
12
12 Richman J, Lorenzana LL, Lankaranian D, Dugar J, Mayer J, Wizov SS, et al. Importance of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity in patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2010;128(12):1576-82.
Richman
J
Lorenzana
LL
Lankaranian
D
Dugar
J
Mayer
J
Wizov
SS
Importance of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity in patients with glaucoma
Arch Ophthalmol
2010
128
12
1576
1582
13
13 Hawkins AS, Szlyk JP, Ardickas Z, Alexander KR, Wilensky JT. Comparison of contrast sensitivity, visual acuity, and Humphrey visual field testing in patients with glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2003;12(2):134-8.
Hawkins
AS
Szlyk
JP
Ardickas
Z
Alexander
KR
Wilensky
JT
Comparison of contrast sensitivity, visual acuity, and Humphrey visual field testing in patients with glaucoma
J Glaucoma
2003
12
2
134
138
14
14 Faria BM, Duman F, Zheng CX, Waisbourd M, Gupta L, Ali M, et al. Evaluating contrast sensitivity in Age-related macular degeneration using a novel computer-based test, the Spaeth/Richman contrast sensitivity test. Retina. 2015;35(7):1465-73.
Faria
BM
Duman
F
Zheng
CX
Waisbourd
M
Gupta
L
Ali
M
Evaluating contrast sensitivity in Age-related macular degeneration using a novel computer-based test, the Spaeth/Richman contrast sensitivity test
Retina
2015
35
7
1465
1473
15
15 Stangos N, Voutas S, Topouzis F, Karampatakis V. Contrast sensitivity evaluation in eyes predisposed to age-related macular degeneration and presenting normal visual acuity. Ophthalmologica. 1995;209(4):194-8.
Stangos
N
Voutas
S
Topouzis
F
Karampatakis
V
Contrast sensitivity evaluation in eyes predisposed to age-related macular degeneration and presenting normal visual acuity
Ophthalmologica
1995
209
4
194
198
16
16 Puell MC, Barrio AR, Palomo-Alvarez C, Gómez-Sanz FJ, Clement-Corral A, Pérez-Carrasco MJ. Impaired mesopic visual acuity in eyes with early age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53(11):7310-4.
Puell
MC
Barrio
AR
Palomo-Alvarez
C
Gómez-Sanz
FJ
Clement-Corral
A
Pérez-Carrasco
MJ
Impaired mesopic visual acuity in eyes with early age-related macular degeneration
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci
2012
53
11
7310
7314
17
17 Klein J, Pierscionek BK, Lauritzen J, Derntl K, Grzybowski A, Zlatkova MB. The effect of cataract on early stage glaucoma detection using spatial and temporal contrast sensitivity tests. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0128681.
Klein
J
Pierscionek
BK
Lauritzen
J
Derntl
K
Grzybowski
A
Zlatkova
MB
The effect of cataract on early stage glaucoma detection using spatial and temporal contrast sensitivity tests
PLoS One
2015
10
6
e0128681
18
18 Bansback N, Czoski-Murray C, Carlton J, Lewis G, Hughes L, Espallargues M, et al. Determinants of health related quality of life and health state utility in patients with age related macular degeneration: the association of contrast sensitivity and visual acuity. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(3):533-43.
Bansback
N
Czoski-Murray
C
Carlton
J
Lewis
G
Hughes
L
Espallargues
M
Determinants of health related quality of life and health state utility in patients with age related macular degeneration: the association of contrast sensitivity and visual acuity
Qual Life Res
2007
16
3
533
543
19
19 Söğütlü Sari E, Kubaloğlu A, Unal M, Liorens DP, Koytak A,Ofluoglu AN, et al. Penetrating keratoplasty versus deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty: comparison of optical and visual quality outcomes. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012;96(8):1063-7.
Söğütlü Sari
E
Kubaloğlu
A
Unal
M
Liorens
DP
Koytak
A
Ofluoglu
AN
Penetrating keratoplasty versus deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty: comparison of optical and visual quality outcomes
Br J Ophthalmol
2012
96
8
1063
1067
20
20 Karakus SH, Basarir B, Pinarci EY, Kirandi EU, Demirok A. Long-term results of half-dose photodynamic therapy for chronic central serous chorioretinopathy with contrast sensitivity changes. Eye (Lond). 2013;27(5):612-20.
Karakus
SH
Basarir
B
Pinarci
EY
Kirandi
EU
Demirok
A
Long-term results of half-dose photodynamic therapy for chronic central serous chorioretinopathy with contrast sensitivity changes
Eye
Lond
2013
27
5
612
620
21
21 Gertnere J, Solomatin I, Sekundo W. Refractive lenticule extraction (ReLEx flex) and wavefront-optimized Femto-LASIK: comparison of contrast sensitivity and high-order aberrations at 1 year. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2013;251(5):1437-42.
Gertnere
J
Solomatin
I
Sekundo
W
Refractive lenticule extraction (ReLEx flex) and wavefront-optimized Femto-LASIK: comparison of contrast sensitivity and high-order aberrations at 1 year
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol
2013
251
5
1437
1442
22
22 Thayaparan K, Crossland MD, Michael D, Rubin GS. Clinical assessment of two new contrast sensitivity charts. Br J Ophthalmol. 2007;91(6):749-52.
Thayaparan
K
Crossland
MD
Michael
D
Rubin
GS
Clinical assessment of two new contrast sensitivity charts
Br J Ophthalmol
2007
91
6
749
752
23
23 Keane PA, Patel PJ, Ouyang Y, Chen FK, Ikeji F, Walsh AC, et al. Effects of retinal morphology on contrast sensitivity and reading ability in neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51(11):5431-7.
Keane
PA
Patel
PJ
Ouyang
Y
Chen
FK
Ikeji
F
Walsh
AC
Effects of retinal morphology on contrast sensitivity and reading ability in neovascular age-related macular degeneration
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci
2010
51
11
5431
5437
24
24 Haughom B, Strand T-E. Sine wave mesopic contrast sensitivity - defining the normal range in a young population. Acta Ophthalmol. 2013;91(2):176-82.
Haughom
B
Strand
T-E
Sine wave mesopic contrast sensitivity - defining the normal range in a young population
Acta Ophthalmol
2013
91
2
176
182
25
25 Li JH, Feng YF, Zhao YE, Zhao YY, Lin L. Contrast visual acuity after multifocal intraocular lens implantation: aspheric versus spherical design. Int J Ophthalmol. 2014; 7(1):100-3.
Li
JH
Feng
YF
Zhao
YE
Zhao
YY
Lin
L
Contrast visual acuity after multifocal intraocular lens implantation: aspheric versus spherical design
Int J Ophthalmol
2014
7
1
100
103
26
26 Haymes SA, Roberts KF, Cruess AF, Cruess AF, Nicolela MT, LeBlanc RP, et al. The letter contrast sensitivity test: clinical evaluation of a new design. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47(6):2739-45.
Haymes
SA
Roberts
KF
Cruess
AF
Cruess
AF
Nicolela
MT
LeBlanc
RP
The letter contrast sensitivity test: clinical evaluation of a new design
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci
2006
47
6
2739
2745
27
27 Hohberger B, Laemmer R, Adler W, Juenemann AG, Horn FK. Measuring contrast sensitivity in normal subjects with OPTEC 6500: influence of age and glare. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2007;245(12):1805-14.
Hohberger
B
Laemmer
R
Adler
W
Juenemann
AG
Horn
FK
Measuring contrast sensitivity in normal subjects with OPTEC 6500: influence of age and glare
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol
2007
245
12
1805
1814
28
28 Chylack LT Jr, Wolfe JK, Singer DM, Leske MC, Bullimore MA, Bailey IL, et al. The Lens Opacities Classification System III. The Longitudinal Study of Cataract Study Group. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993;111(6):831-6.
Chylack
LT
Jr
Wolfe
JK
Singer
DM
Leske
MC
Bullimore
MA
Bailey
IL
The Lens Opacities Classification System III. The Longitudinal Study of Cataract Study Group
Arch Ophthalmol
1993
111
6
831
836
29
29 Shaffer RN. Primary glaucomas. Gonioscopy, ophthalmoscopy and perimetry. Trans Am Acad Ophthalmol Otolaryngol. 1960;64:112-27.
Shaffer
RN
Primary glaucomas. Gonioscopy, ophthalmoscopy and perimetry
Trans Am Acad Ophthalmol Otolaryngol
1960
64
112
127
30
30 Armstrong RA, Davies LN, Dunne MC, Gilmartin B. Statistical guidelines for clinical studies of human vision. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2011;31(2):123-36.
Armstrong
RA
Davies
LN
Dunne
MC
Gilmartin
B
Statistical guidelines for clinical studies of human vision
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt
2011
31
2
123
136
31
31 Bühren J, Terzi E, Bach M, Wesemann W, Kohnen T. Measuring contrast sensitivity under different lighting conditions: comparison of three tests. Optom Vis Sci. 2006;83(5): 290-8.
Bühren
J
Terzi
E
Bach
M
Wesemann
W
Kohnen
T
Measuring contrast sensitivity under different lighting conditions: comparison of three tests
Optom Vis Sci
2006
83
5
290
298
32
32 Lundh BL. Central and peripheral contrast sensitivity for static and dynamic sinusoidal gratings in glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol. 1985;63(5):487-92.
Lundh
BL
Central and peripheral contrast sensitivity for static and dynamic sinusoidal gratings in glaucoma
Acta Ophthalmol
1985
63
5
487
492
33
33 McKendrick AM, Sampson GP, Walland MJ, Badcock DR. Contrast sensitivity changes due to glaucoma and normal aging: low-spatial-frequency losses in both magnocellular and parvocellular pathways. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48(5):2115-22.
McKendrick
AM
Sampson
GP
Walland
MJ
Badcock
DR
Contrast sensitivity changes due to glaucoma and normal aging: low-spatial-frequency losses in both magnocellular and parvocellular pathways
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci
2007
48
5
2115
2122
34
34 Ansari EA, Morgan JE, Snowden RJ. Psychophysical characterisation of early functional loss in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002;86(10):1131-5.
Ansari
EA
Morgan
JE
Snowden
RJ
Psychophysical characterisation of early functional loss in glaucoma and ocular hypertension
Br J Ophthalmol
2002
86
10
1131
1135
35
35 Sun H, Swanson WH, Arvidson B, Dul MW. Assessment of contrast gain signature in inferred magnocellular and parvocellular pathways in patients with glaucoma. Vision Res. 2008;48(26):2633-41.
Sun
H
Swanson
WH
Arvidson
B
Dul
MW
Assessment of contrast gain signature in inferred magnocellular and parvocellular pathways in patients with glaucoma
Vision Res
2008
48
26
2633
2641
36
36 Patel PJ, Chen FK, Rubin GS, Tufail A. Intersession repeatability of contrast sensitivity scores in age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50(6): 2621-5.
Patel
PJ
Chen
FK
Rubin
GS
Tufail
A
Intersession repeatability of contrast sensitivity scores in age-related macular degeneration
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci
2009
50
6
2621
2625
37
37 Scilley K, Jackson GR, Cideciyan AV, Maguire MG, Jacobson SG, Owsley C. Early age-related maculopathy and self-reported visual difficulty in daily life. Ophthalmology. 2002;109(7):1235-42.
Scilley
K
Jackson
GR
Cideciyan
AV
Maguire
MG
Jacobson
SG
Owsley
C
Early age-related maculopathy and self-reported visual difficulty in daily life
Ophthalmology
2002
109
7
1235
1242
38
38 Browne C, Brazier J, Carlton J, Alavi Y, Jofre-Bonet M. Estimating quality-adjusted life years from patient-reported visual functioning. Eye (Lond). 2012;26(10):1295-301.
Browne
C
Brazier
J
Carlton
J
Alavi
Y
Jofre-Bonet
M
Estimating quality-adjusted life years from patient-reported visual functioning
Eye
Lond
2012
26
10
1295
1301
39
39 Wei H, Sawchyn AK, Myers JS, Katz LJ, Moster MR, Wizov SS, Steele M, Lo D, Spaeth GL. A clinical method to assess the effect of visual loss on the ability to perform activities of daily living. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012;96(5):735-41.
Wei
H
Sawchyn
AK
Myers
JS
Katz
LJ
Moster
MR
Wizov
SS
Steele
M
Lo
D
Spaeth
GL
A clinical method to assess the effect of visual loss on the ability to perform activities of daily living
Br J Ophthalmol
2012
96
5
735
741
40
40 Rubin GS, Bandeen-Roche K, Huang GH, Muñoz B, Schein OD, Fried LP, West SK. The association of multiple visual impairments with self-reported visual disability: SEE project. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42(1):64-72.
Rubin
GS
Bandeen-Roche
K
Huang
GH
Muñoz
B
Schein
OD
Fried
LP
West
SK
The association of multiple visual impairments with self-reported visual disability: SEE project
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci
2001
42
1
64
72
Autoria
Selcuk Kara Corresponding author: Selcuk Kara. Canakkale Onsekiz Mart Universitesi Tip Fakultesi, Goz Hastalıkları AD - Canakkale - 17000 - Turkey - E- mail: selckara@gmail.com
Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Canakkale, Turkey.Canakkale Onsekiz Mart UniversityTurkeyCanakkale, TurkeyDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Canakkale, Turkey.
Baran Gencer
Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Canakkale, Turkey.Canakkale Onsekiz Mart UniversityTurkeyCanakkale, TurkeyDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Canakkale, Turkey.
Ismail Ersan
Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Canakkale, Turkey.Canakkale Onsekiz Mart UniversityTurkeyCanakkale, TurkeyDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Canakkale, Turkey.
Sedat Arikan
Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Canakkale, Turkey.Canakkale Onsekiz Mart UniversityTurkeyCanakkale, TurkeyDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Canakkale, Turkey.
Omer Kocabiyik
Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Canakkale, Turkey.Canakkale Onsekiz Mart UniversityTurkeyCanakkale, TurkeyDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Canakkale, Turkey.
Hasan Ali Tufan
Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Canakkale, Turkey.Canakkale Onsekiz Mart UniversityTurkeyCanakkale, TurkeyDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Canakkale, Turkey.
ArzuTaskiran Comez
Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Canakkale, Turkey.Canakkale Onsekiz Mart UniversityTurkeyCanakkale, TurkeyDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Canakkale, Turkey.
Corresponding author: Selcuk Kara. Canakkale Onsekiz Mart Universitesi Tip Fakultesi, Goz Hastalıkları AD - Canakkale - 17000 - Turkey - E- mail: selckara@gmail.com
Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest: None of the authors have any potential conflict of interest to disclose.
SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS
Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Canakkale, Turkey.Canakkale Onsekiz Mart UniversityTurkeyCanakkale, TurkeyDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Canakkale, Turkey.
Figure 3
Contrast sensitivity for the control, glaucoma, cataract, and age-related macular degeneration (AMD) groups as a function of spatial frequency.
Table 1
Test-retest reliability of the contrast sensitivity test in the groups of control, glaucoma, cataract, and age-related macular degeneration groups
Table 2
The floor and ceiling effect for each spatial frequency and group (measured by the percentage of maximum and minimum CS scores in the control (n=30), glaucoma (n=13), cataract (n=29), and AMD (n=18) groups)
imageFigure 1
The functional vision analyzer contrast sensitivity test device.
open_in_new
imageFigure 2
Sine-wave grating charts in the view-in contrast sensitivity test device.
open_in_new
imageFigure 3
Contrast sensitivity for the control, glaucoma, cataract, and age-related macular degeneration (AMD) groups as a function of spatial frequency.
open_in_new
table_chartTable 1
Test-retest reliability of the contrast sensitivity test in the groups of control, glaucoma, cataract, and age-related macular degeneration groups
Spatial
1st session
2nd session
Intersession
frequency (cpd)
ICC
COR
ICC
COR
p-value
ICC
COR
Control group
1.5
0.86
0.19
0.91
0.13
0.92
0.14
3
0.86
0.18
0.89
0.16
0.95
0.10
6
0.83
0.23
0.87
0.20
0.042**
statistically significant p<0.05.
aa
p-value of Wilcoxon signed-rank test for ICC of 1st and 2nd sessions.
0.91
0.16
12
0.91
0.23
0.96
0.15
0.043**
statistically significant p<0.05.
bb
p-value of Wilcoxon signed-rank test for COR of 1st and 2nd sessions.
0.94
0.18
18
0.87
0.38
0.96
0.18
0.94
0.23
Mean
0.87
0.24
0.92
0.16
0.93
0.16
Glaucoma group
1.5
0.92
0.14
0.83
0.22
0.96
0.10
3
0.80
0.24
0.92
0.15
0.95
0.11
6
0.85
0.22
0.94
0.14
0.461aa
p-value of Wilcoxon signed-rank test for ICC of 1st and 2nd sessions.
0.86
0.20
12
0.95
0.20
0.97
0.11
0.194bb
p-value of Wilcoxon signed-rank test for COR of 1st and 2nd sessions.
0.96
0.15
18
0.98
0.18
0.98
0.18
0.98
0.19
Mean
0.90
0.20
0.93
0.16
0.94
0.15
Cataract group
1.5
0.86
0.22
0.88
0.17
0.94
0.14
3
0.84
0.23
0.94
0.14
0.96
0.10
6
0.86
0.25
0.93
0.18
0.043**
statistically significant p<0.05.
aa
p-value of Wilcoxon signed-rank test for ICC of 1st and 2nd sessions.
0.96
0.14
12
0.56
0.56
0.85
0.37
0.043**
statistically significant p<0.05.
bb
p-value of Wilcoxon signed-rank test for COR of 1st and 2nd sessions.
0.81
0.34
18
0.70
0.67
0.92
0.33
0.96
0.22
Mean
0.76
0.38
0.90
0.24
0.93
0.19
AMD group
1.5
0.72
0.17
0.88
0.14
0.93
0.09
3
0.74
0.19
0.84
0.16
0.91
0.10
6
0.62
0.23
0.80
0.23
0.043**
statistically significant p<0.05.
aa
p-value of Wilcoxon signed-rank test for ICC of 1st and 2nd sessions.
0.88
0.13
12
0.83
0.18
0.90
0.20
0.141bb
p-value of Wilcoxon signed-rank test for COR of 1st and 2nd sessions.
0.90
0.15
18
0.56
0.50
0.90
0.32
0.68
0.42
Mean
0.69
0.25
0.86
0.21
0.86
0.18
table_chartTable 2
The floor and ceiling effect for each spatial frequency and group (measured by the percentage of maximum and minimum CS scores in the control (n=30), glaucoma (n=13), cataract (n=29), and AMD (n=18) groups)
Percentage with the minimum CS score for each spatial frequency (%)
Percentage with the maximum CS score for each spatial frequency (%)
Test
Group
1.5
3
6
12
18
1.5
3
6
12
18
1
Control
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.7
6.7
3.3
3.3
0.0
0.0
Glaucoma
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.7
46.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Cataract
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.6
25.0
7.1
3.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
AMD
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
Control
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.7
10.0
10.0
6.7
10.0
3.3
0.0
Glaucoma
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.7
38.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Cataract
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
28.6
3.6
7.1
10.7
0.0
0.0
AMD
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.6
22.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
Control
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.7
10.0
6.7
10.0
0.0
3.3
Glaucoma
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Cataract
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.6
25.0
0.0
0.0
7.1
3.6
0.0
AMD
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
Control
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.0
6.7
6.7
6.7
0.0
3.3
Glaucoma
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
23.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Cataract
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.1
32.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AMD
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.6
22.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Como citar
Kara, Selcuk et al. Reprodutibilidade dos escores de sensibilidade ao contraste em pacientes com degeneração macular relacionadas à idade, glaucoma e catarata. Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia [online]. 2016, v. 79, n. 5 [Acessado 4 Abril 2025], pp. 323-327. Disponível em: <https://doi.org/10.5935/0004-2749.20160092>. ISSN 1678-2925. https://doi.org/10.5935/0004-2749.20160092.
Conselho Brasileiro de OftalmologiaRua Casa do Ator, 1117 - cj.21, 04546-004 São Paulo SP Brazil, Tel: 55 11 - 3266-4000, Fax: 55 11- 3171-0953 -
São Paulo -
SP -
Brazil E-mail: abo@cbo.com.br
rss_feed
Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS
scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.