Assessment of contrast sensitivity by Spaeth Richman Contrast Sensitivity Test and Pelli Robson Chart Test in patients with varying severity of glaucoma

Thakur, Sahil; Ichhpujani, Parul; Kumar, Suresh; Kaur, Ravneet; Sood, Sunandan

doi:10.1038/s41433-018-0099-y

Cited by 20 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Contrast sensitivity: As for a normative database of SPARCS scores, it is yet to be established for the Indian population, and we used data from a previous study done at our centre by Thakur and coworkers [ 14 ], who had evaluated SPARCS in glaucoma patients and normal subjects. In that study, the average total SPARCS score was found to be 76.02 + 6.35 (range 61.0-86.5) amongst 45 controls (normals) in Indian population.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contrast sensitivity in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension

Rehman¹,

Ichhpujani²,

Kumar³

2020

rjo

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension (IIH) is a disease of elevated intracranial pressure without any known cause. Visual dysfunction is the major morbidity of this disease but not much is known about the way the contrast sensitivity (CS) function is affected. Objective: This prospective, interventional study attempted to evaluate the change in central and peripheral contrast sensitivity, after treatment in patients diagnosed with IIH. Materials and methods: Twenty eyes of 10 IIH patients underwent an internet based, Spaeth Richman Contrast Sensitivity (SPARCS) test. Average and quadrant wise SPARCS scores were compared at presentation (treatment naïve), 1-month post treatment and 3 months post treatment. Results: The average SPARCS scores pre-treatment, 1-month post-treatment and at 3 months post treatment were 68.8 + 10.16, 74.45 + 11.17 and 75.7 + 10.81 respectively. At 3 months visit, the average SPARCS score was nearly comparable to the average score in normal Indian subjects, observed in a previous study of ours. Quadrant wise change in contrast sensitivity from first visit to third visit was significant in superonasal (p=0.003), inferonasal (p=0.029) and inferotemporal (p= 0.007) quadrants. Discussion: Effect of IIH on visual system is still a relatively unexplored area, especially in the Indians. Not many studies have concentrated on its impact on central as well as peripheral CS. Previous studies have hinted at a possible role of CS as a better indicator of visual dysfunction than other parameters. Conclusions: IIH affects both central and peripheral contrast sensitivity and therapy results in the improvement of contrast deficit. Poor contrast can possibly be explained by relatively more involvement of Magnocellular pathway over the Parvocellular pathway. Abbreviations: IIH = Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension, CS = Contrast Sensitivity, SPARCS = Spaeth Richman Contrast Sensitivity Test, BMI = Body Mass Index, MC = Magnocellular pathway, PC = Parvocellular pathway

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contrast sensitivity in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension

Rehman¹,

Ichhpujani²,

Kumar³

2020

rjo

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, Amanullah et al [ 24 ] were able to record a linear relationship with RNFL thickness. Thakur et al [ 25 ] were able to show that contrast sensitivity scores are associated with the severity of glaucomatous disease. Besides, Lin et al [ 26 ] reported that contrast sensitivity is a vital parameter to predict visual disability in glaucoma.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Association of ocular blood flow and contrast sensitivity in normal tension glaucoma

Kuerten

Fuest

Walter

et al. 2021

Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To investigate the relationship of ocular blood flow (via arteriovenous passage time, AVP) and contrast sensitivity (CS) in healthy as well as normal tension glaucoma (NTG) subjects. Design Mono-center comparative prospective trial Methods Twenty-five NTG patients without medication and 25 healthy test participants were recruited. AVP as a measure of retinal blood flow was recorded via fluorescein angiography after CS measurement using digital image analysis. Association of AVP and CS at 4 spatial frequencies (3, 6, 12, and 18 cycles per degree, cpd) was explored with correlation analysis. Results Significant differences regarding AVP, visual field defect, intraocular pressure, and CS measurement were recorded in-between the control group and NTG patients. In NTG patients, AVP was significantly correlated to CS at all investigated cpd (3 cpd: r = − 0.432, p< 0.03; 6 cpd: r = − 0.629, p< 0.0005; 12 cpd: r = − 0.535, p< 0.005; and 18 cpd: r = − 0.58, p< 0.001), whereas no significant correlations were found in the control group. Visual acuity was significantly correlated to CS at 6, 12, and 18 cpd in NTG patients (r = − 0.68, p< 0.002; r = − 0.54, p< .02, and r = − 0.88, p< 0.0001 respectively), however not in healthy control patients. Age, visual field defect MD, and PSD were not significantly correlated to CS in in the NTG group. MD and PSD were significantly correlated to CS at 3 cpd in healthy eyes (r = 0.55, p< 0.02; r = − 0.47, p< 0.03). Conclusion Retinal blood flow alterations show a relationship with contrast sensitivity loss in NTG patients. This might reflect a disease-related link between retinal blood flow and visual function. This association was not recorded in healthy volunteers.

show abstract

“…Thakur et al had also reported the utility of the Spaeth/Richman Contrast Sensitivity (SPARCS) app test which evaluated visual function in advanced glaucoma patients, the elderly and patients with limited movement capabilities. 40 The team found that the SPARCS test was reliable and performed better than the conventional Pelli Robson Chart in terms of sensitivity, specificity and repeatability scores.…”

Section: Strabismic Patientsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Emergence of non‐artificial intelligence digital health innovations in ophthalmology: A systematic review

Tseng

Tham

Rim

et al. 2021

Clinical Exper Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The prominent rise of digital health in ophthalmology is evident in the current age of Industry 4.0. Despite the many facets of digital health, there has been a greater slant in interest and focus on artificial intelligence recently. Other major elements of digital health like wearables could also substantially impact patient-focused outcomes but have been relatively less explored and discussed. In this review, we comprehensively evaluate the use of non-artificial intelligence digital health tools in ophthalmology. 53 papers were included in this systematic review -25 papers discuss virtual or augmented reality, 14 discuss mobile applications and 14 discuss wearables. Most papers focused on the use of technologies to detect or rehabilitate visual impairment, glaucoma and agerelated macular degeneration. Overall, the findings on patient-focused outcomes with the adoption of these technologies are encouraging. Further validation, large-scale studies and earlier consideration of real-world barriers are warranted to enable better real-world implementation.

show abstract

Assessment of contrast sensitivity by Spaeth Richman Contrast Sensitivity Test and Pelli Robson Chart Test in patients with varying severity of glaucoma

Cited by 20 publications

References 16 publications

Contrast sensitivity in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension

Contrast sensitivity in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension

Association of ocular blood flow and contrast sensitivity in normal tension glaucoma

Emergence of non‐artificial intelligence digital health innovations in ophthalmology: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About