The SPARCS: a novel assessment of contrast sensitivity and its reliability in patients with corrected refractive error. Issue 10 (12th January 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Sun, Yi; Erdem, Elif; Lyu, Andrew; Zangalli, Camila; Wizov, Sheryl S; Lo, David; Spaeth, Eric E; Richman, Jesse; Spaeth, George L
• Is Part Of: British journal of ophthalmology. Volume 100:Issue 10(2016)
• Page Start: 1421
• Page End: 1426
• Publication Date: 2016-01-12
• Subjects: Diagnostic tests/Investigation -- Visual perception -- Imaging; Ophthalmology -- Periodicals; 617.7
• DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2015-307378
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0007-1161

Abstract

Abstract : 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