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
. 2021 May 28;21(1):238.
doi: 10.1186/s12886-021-02005-2.

Quantitative visual tests in primary open-angle glaucoma patients according to three different lights with different color-rendering index

Affiliations

Quantitative visual tests in primary open-angle glaucoma patients according to three different lights with different color-rendering index

Sang Woo Kim et al. BMC Ophthalmol. .

Abstract

Purpose: To compare quantitative visual tests, such as visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and color vision tests in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) patients according to three different light systems with different color-rendering index (CRI).

Methods: This was a cross-sectional study of 36 eyes in 36 patients with POAG. Three different light systems consisting of a 3-band fluorescent lamp (CRI 80), a white LED (CRI 75), and a quantum dot LED (CRI > 95) were used. All lights had the same illuminance of 230 lx to exclude illuminance effects. The visual testing included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) using an ETDRS chart, a CSV-1000E contrast test, and a color test performed by the Farnsworth Munsell 100-hue test.

Results: There was no significant difference in BCVA (p = 0.86). There were no significant differences in the detail contrast tests according to the three light systems (p = 0.95, p = 0.94, p = 0.94, respectively, p = 0.64). There was significant difference between the three light systems in color test (p = 0.042). The color test scores with a quantum dot LED were significantly lower than those of the white LED and 3-band fluorescent lamp (p = 0.03 and 0.047, respectively).

Conclusions: POAG patients did not show significant differences in visual acuity scores and contrast test scores, expressed as black and white symbols, according to the different light systems. However, POAG patients tested under a quantum dot LED (CRI > 95) could distinguish color differences better than in the other light systems.

Keywords: color rendering index; glaucoma; quantitative visual test; quantum dot LED.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The ETDRS chart and CSV-1000E chart under each of three different light systems. (A)3-band fluorescent lamp (CRI: 80). (B) White LED (CRI: 75). (C) Quantum dot LED (CRI > 95). (D, G) ETDRS and CSV-1000E charts under the 3-band fluorescent lamp. (E, H) ETDRS and CSV-100E charts under the white LED. (F, I) ETDRS and CSV-1000E charts under the quantum dot LED
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Relationship between color tests and groups (light systems). Black bar shows results of glaucoma patients and gray bar shows result of normal subjects that were age-matched to glaucoma patients. There were significant differences between group 1 and group 3, and group 2 and 3 in the TES of the color test in glaucoma patients(asterisk means significant difference) (p = 0.047, p = 0.03, respectively).There was no significant difference between groups in normal subjects. There was no significant difference between group 1 and group 2 (p > 0.05). Group 1: 3-band fluorescent lamp (CRI: 80), Group 2: White LED (CRI: 75), Group 3: Quantum dot LED (CRI > 95)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Relationship between the color test, MD, and PSD. (A)There was a significant negative relationship between the MD and TES of the color test (r = -0.549, p = 0.001). (B) There was a significant positive relationship between the PSD and TES of the color test (r = 0.385, p = 0.002)

References

    1. Jonas JB, Aung T, Bourne RR, et al. Glaucoma. Lancet. 2017;390:2183–2193. - PubMed
    1. Bourne RR, Taylor HR, Flaxman SR, et al. Number of People Blind or Visually Impaired by Glaucoma Worldwide and in World Regions 1990–2010: A Meta-Analysis. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0162229. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162229. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tham YC, Li X, Wong TY, et al. Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology. 2014;121:2081–2090. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.05.013. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Freeman EE, Egleston BL, West SK, et al. Visual acuity change and mortality in older adults. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:4040–4045. doi: 10.1167/iovs.05-0687. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Park CK, Kim DW, Lee CK. Near and Distance Stereoacuity in Patients With Primary Open-angle Glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2018;27:537–542. doi: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000963. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources