SPARCS and Pelli–Robson contrast sensitivity testing in normal controls and patients with cataract

Abstract

Purpose To determine the ability of the newly developed internet-based Spaeth/Richman Contrast Sensitivity (SPARCS) test to assess contrast sensitivity centrally and peripherally in cataract subjects and controls, in comparison with the Pelli-Robson (PR) test. Methods In this prospective cross-sectional study, cataract subjects and age-matched normal controls were evaluated using the SPARCS and PR tests. Contrast sensitivity testing was performed in each eye twice in a standardized testing environment in randomized order. SPARCS scores were obtained for central, right upper (RUQ), right lower (RLQ), left upper (LUQ), and left lower quadrants (LLQ). PR scores were obtained for central contrast sensitivity. PR and SPARCS scores in cataract subjects were compared with controls. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland Altman analysis were used to determine test-retest reliability and correlation. Results A total of 162 eyes from 84 subjects were analyzed: 43 eyes from 23 cataract subjects, and 119 eyes from 61 controls. The mean scores for SPARCS centrally were 13.4 and 14.5 in the cataract and control groups, respectively (P = 0.001). PR mean scores were 1.31 and 1.45 in cataract and control groups, respectively (Po0.001). ICC values for testretest reliability for cataract subjects were 0.75 for PR and 0.61 for the SPARCS total. There was acceptable agreement between the ability of PR and SPARCS to detect the effect of cataract on central contrast sensitivity. Conclusions Both SPARCS and PR demonstrate a significant influence of cataract on contrast sensitivity. SPARCS offers the advantage of determining contrast sensitivity peripherally and centrally, without being influenced by literacy.

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

“…(P < 0.001 for both, respectively). The mean DDLS score for glaucoma subgroup analysis in the mild group was 7.33 ± 0.976 (6)(7)(8)(9)(10), in the moderate group 7.60 ± 0.910 (6)(7)(8)(9) and in the severe group 8.20 ± 0.941 (6)(7)(8)(9). In pairwise analysis, the DDLS was significantly higher in the severe group as compared to the mild group (P = 0.016).…”

“…The mean DDLS score in controls was 3.22 ± 1.412 (1)(2)(3)(4), in suspects 4.93 ± 1.195 (2)(3)(4)(5)(6) and in glaucoma patients 7.71 ± 0.991 (7)(8)(9)(10). In pairwise analysis, the DDLS was significantly higher in the glaucoma group as compared to the suspects or control group.…”

“…In pairwise analysis, the IOP was statistically higher in the control group as compared to the glaucoma group (P = 0.012). The mean IOP for glaucoma subgroup analysis in the mild group was 13.93 ± 2.890 (8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19) mm Hg, in the moderate group 11.67 ± 2.664 (6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15) mm Hg and in the severe group 13.73 ± 3.369 (8-22) mm Hg and there was no statistically significant difference in IOP distribution between the different study groups, χ 2 = 4.604, P = 0.100.…”

“…SPARCS has been used to identify patients with glaucoma with high test-retest reliability and correlates well with the most commonly used optotypebased Pelli Robson contrast sensitivity chart [6]. In addition to its role in glaucoma assessment, SPARCS has also been shown to be a reliable method to assess contrast sensitivity in cases of refractive errors and cataract patients [9,10].…”

“…The mean intraocular pressure (IOP) in controls was 15.02 ± 3.201 (10-24) mm Hg, in disc suspects 13.84 ± 3.133 (8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20) mm Hg and in glaucoma patients 13.11 ± 3.099 (6-22) mm Hg. The distribution of IOP was not similar across the study groups, χ 2 = 7.020, P = 0.03.…”