Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2004 Jan;88(1):11-6.
doi: 10.1136/bjo.88.1.11.

The usefulness of Vistech and FACT contrast sensitivity charts for cataract and refractive surgery outcomes research

K Pesudovs  1 , C A Hazel, R M L Doran, D B Elliott
Affiliations
Comparative Study

The usefulness of Vistech and FACT contrast sensitivity charts for cataract and refractive surgery outcomes research

K Pesudovs et al. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004 Jan.

Abstract

Aim: To investigate the repeatability and sensitivity of two commonly used sine wave patch charts for contrast sensitivity (CS) measurement in cataract and refractive surgery outcomes.

Methods: The Vistech CS chart and its descendant, the Functional Acuity Contrast Test (FACT), were administered in three experiments: (1) Post-LASIK and age matched normal subjects; (2) Preoperative cataract surgery and age matched normal subjects; (3) Test-retest repeatability data in normal subjects.

Results: Contrast sensitivity was similar between post-LASIK and control groups and between the Vistech and FACT charts. The percentage of subjects one month post-LASIK achieving the maximum score across spatial frequencies (1.5, 3, 6, 12, 18 cycles per degree) were (50, 33, 13, 13, 0 respectively) for FACT, but only (0, 0, 13, 4, 0 respectively) for Vistech. A small number of cataract patients also registered the maximum score on the FACT, but up to 60% did not achieve the minimum score. Test-retest intraclass correlation coefficients varied from 0.28 to 0.64 for Vistech and 0.18 to 0.45 for FACT. Bland-Altman limits of agreement across spatial frequencies were between +/-0.30 and +/-0.85 logCS for Vistech, and +/-0.30 to +/-0.75 logCS for FACT.

Discussion: The Vistech was confirmed as providing poorly repeatable data. The FACT chart, likely because of a smaller step size, showed slightly better retest agreement. However, the reduced range of scores on the chart due to the smaller step size led to ceiling (post-LASIK) and floor (cataract) effects. These problems could mask subtle differences between groups of patients with near normal visual function as found post-refractive or cataract surgery. The Vistech and FACT CS charts are ill suited for refractive or cataract surgery outcomes research.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The range of contrast sensitivity over which the Vistech (black columns) and FACT (grey columns) charts can measure.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Log contrast sensitivity (mean, 95% confidence interval) for each of the five spatial frequencies (1.5, 3, 6, 12, 18 cpd) of the Vistech and FACT charts. To aid clarity Vistech and FACT data are presented displaced either side of the actual spatial frequency. Data are shown for 27 normal subjects and the 27 post-LASIK subjects. FACT chart = open symbols (○, post-LASIK; □, normal subjects). Vistech = closed symbols (•, post-LASIK; ▪¦, normal subjects).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Kohnen T. Measuring vision in refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 2001;27:1897–8. - PubMed
    1. Williams D, Yoon GY, Porter J, et al. Visual benefit of correcting higher order aberrations of the eye. J Refract Surg 2000;16:S554–9. - PubMed
    1. McLeod SD. Beyond snellen acuity: the assessment of visual function after refractive surgery. Arch Ophthalmol 2001;119:1371–3. - PubMed
    1. Lawless MA. Refining visual quality assessment in refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 1999;25:1031–2. - PubMed
    1. AHCPR Report: Cataract Management Guideline Panel. Cataract in Adults: Management of Real world Impairment. Rockville, MD: Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Health care Policy and research AHCPR Pub. No. 93–0542, 1993. Clinical Practice Guideline Number 4.

Publication types