Evidence Hub

Double‐pass technique and compensation‐comparison method in eyes with cataract

J. Martínez-Roda, M. Vilaseca, Juan C. Ondategui, Lorena Almudí, Moafak Asaad, Lorena Mateos-Pena, M. Arjona, J. Pujol

Journal of cataract and refractive surgery, 2016

29 citations

Abstract

Purpose To clinically assess the objective scatter index (OSI) obtained from double‐pass images and the log(s) parameter measured with the direct compensation‐comparison psychophysical technique in eyes with cataract. Setting Ophthalmology Service, Terrassa Hospital, Barcelona, Spain. Design Prospective observational case series. Methods The analysis comprised eyes diagnosed with nuclear, cortical, or posterior subcapsular cataracts and healthy eyes (control group). Patient examinations included assessment of the manifest subjective refraction, corrected distance visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and cataract grade using the Lens Opacities Classification System III (LOCS III) score. The protocol also included the straylight (log[s]) measured by the C‐Quant device, measurement of the objective optical quality (Strehl ratio and modulation transfer function cutoff frequency), and the OSI (HD Analyzer). Results Significant correlations with LOCS III classification were found in terms of log(s) and OSI, although they were slightly stronger with OSI for all cataract types, which could be attributable to higher‐order aberrations. The OSI and log(s) shared approximately 44% of the scattering estimation and to coincide on the visual function decline with scattering for the 3 cataract types evaluated. Limits to discriminate between healthy and cataractous eyes and sensitivity and specificity values were 1.15 (sensitivity 91%, specificity 100%) for log(s) and 1.18 (sensitivity 89%,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free