Article | Published:

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

Eyevolume 32pages13921400 (2018) | Download Citation

Abstract

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.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    Quigley HA, Broman AT. The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90:262–7.

  2. 2.

    Quigley HA, Addicks EM, Green WR. Optic nerve damage in human glaucoma. III. Quantitative correlation of nerve fiber loss and visual field defect in glaucoma, ischemic neuropathy, papilledema, and toxic neuropathy. Arch Ophthalmol. 1982;100:135–46.

  3. 3.

    Broadway DC. Visual field testing for glaucoma—a practical guide. Community Eye Health. 2012;25:66–70.

  4. 4.

    Richman J, Spaeth GL, Wirostko B. Contrast sensitivity basics and a critique of currently available tests. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013;39:1100–6.

  5. 5.

    George L, Spaeth. Validation and reproducibility of Spaeth/Richman Contrast Sensitivity Test 2014 [updated 29 January 2015; cited 10 October 2015]. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT01300949.

  6. 6.

    Richman J, Zangalli C, Lu L, Wizov SS, Spaeth E, Spaeth GL. The Spaeth/Richman contrast sensitivity test (SPARCS): design, reproducibility and ability to identify patients with glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2015;99:16–20.

  7. 7.

    Richman J, Lorenzana LL, Lankaranian D, Dugar J, Mayer JR, Wizov SS, et al. Relationships in glaucoma patients between standard vision tests, quality of life, and ability to perform daily activities. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2010;17:144–51.

  8. 8.

    Shoshani YZ, Harris A, Rusia D, Spaeth GL, Siesky B, Pollack A, et al. Contrast sensitivity, ocular blood flow and their potential role in assessing ischaemic retinal disease. Acta Ophthalmol. 2011;89:e382–95.

  9. 9.

    Sun Y, Erdem E, Lyu A, Zangalli C, Wizov SS, Lo D, et al. SPARCS: a novel assessment of contrast sensitivity and its validity in patients with refractive error. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55:2711.

  10. 10.

    Gupta L, Cvintal V, Delvadia R, Sun Y, Erdem E, Zangalli C, et al. SPARCS and Pelli–Robson contrast sensitivity testing in normal controls and patients with cataract. Eye. 2017;31:753–761.

  11. 11.

    Prum BE Jr, Rosenberg LF, Gedde SJ, Mansberger SL, Stein JD, Moroi SE, et al. Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma Preferred Practice Pattern((R)) Guidelines. Ophthalmology. 2016;123:P41–P111.

  12. 12.

    Prum BE Jr., Lim MC, Mansberger SL, Stein JD, Moroi SE, Gedde SJ, et al. Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma Suspect Preferred Practice Pattern((R)) Guidelines. Ophthalmology. 2016;123:P112–51.

  13. 13.

    Henderer JD. Disc damage likelihood scale. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90:395–6.

  14. 14.

    Anderson D, Patella V. Automated static perimetry. 2 ed. St Louis: Mosby; 1999.

  15. 15.

    Pelli DG, Robson JG, Wilkins AJ. The design of a new letter chart for measuring contrast sensitivity. Clin Vision Sci. 1988;2:187–99.

  16. 16.

    Machines IB. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp; 2013.

  17. 17.

    Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307–10.

  18. 18.

    Sun Y, Erdem E, Lyu A, Zangalli C, Wizov SS, Lo D, et al. The SPARCS: a novel assessment of contrast sensitivity and its reliability in patients with corrected refractive error. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016;100:1421–6.

  19. 19.

    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;35:1465–73.

  20. 20.

    Ohtani S, Miyata K, Samejima T, Honbou M, Oshika T. Intraindividual comparison of aspherical and spherical intraocular lenses of same material and platform. Ophthalmology. 2009;116:896–901.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector-32, Chandigarh, India

    • Sahil Thakur
    • , Parul Ichhpujani
    • , Suresh Kumar
    • , Ravneet Kaur
    •  & Sunandan Sood

Authors

  1. Search for Sahil Thakur in:

  2. Search for Parul Ichhpujani in:

  3. Search for Suresh Kumar in:

  4. Search for Ravneet Kaur in:

  5. Search for Sunandan Sood in:

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Parul Ichhpujani.

About this article

Publication history

Received

Revised

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-018-0099-y