4.6 Article

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

Journal

EYE
Volume 32, Issue 8, Pages 1392-1400

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41433-018-0099-y

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose This study was designed to assess the efficacy, reliability and repeatability of SPARCS (Spaeth Richman Contrast Sensitivity Test) as compared to the conventional Pelli Robson Chart Test for the assessment of contrast sensitivity in patients with glaucoma. Materials and Methods We evaluated 135 eyes of 135 patients who were age and sex matched into three groups (controls, disc suspects and glaucoma) of 45 patients each. The glaucoma subgroup was further divided into subgroups of mild, moderate and severe based on the visual field damage. Results There was a strong positive correlation between Pelli Robson scores and SPARCS scores (S = 0.807, P < 0.001). Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for Pelli Robson Test was 0.952 and 0.988 for SPARCS. The coefficient of repeatability (COR) for mean SPARCS was 5.65%, while COR of Pelli Robson Test was 12.44%. SPARCS was found to have better repeatability than Pelli Robson Test based on COR values. Pelli Robson score had a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 65.6% for detecting glaucoma patients as compared to 84.4% and 70%, respectively, for SPARCS scores. Conclusion SPARCS is a better alternative to conventional Pelli Robson Chart Test for assessment of contrast sensitivity in patients with glaucoma. Being independent of the effects of literacy and educational status, it offers a universal way to measure contrast sensitivity. It can also be reliably used in patients with varying severity of glaucoma.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available