Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry · 2001
Visual acuity in contact lens wearers.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПоддержка службы здравоохранения СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bailey M D, Walline J J, Mitchell G L, Zadnik K
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The difference between high- and low-contrast visual acuity provides a sensitive indicator of vision loss in ocular disease; however, the effect of refractive error correction on this difference is still debated.
METHODS: High- and low-contrast visual acuity was measured in 116 rigid gas permeable contact lens wearers, 51 spectacle wearers, and 50 soft contact lens wearers with habitual and best correction. Twenty-nine of the soft contact lens wearers reported that they wore disposable contact lenses (discarded on a monthly or more frequent basis), whereas the other 21 soft contact lens wearers wore traditional soft contact lenses.
RESULTS: Rigid gas permeable contact lens wearers had statistically worse high-contrast habitual visual acuity than spectacle wearers (Tukey-Kramer, p = 0.0075). Traditional soft contact lens wearers had significantly worse low-contrast visual acuity compared with all other groups (Tukey-Kramer, p < 0.02 for each comparison). Traditional soft contact lens wearers had a significantly larger difference between high- and low-contrast visual acuity with best correction compared with rigid gas permeable wearers (Tukey-Kramer, p = 0.0099).
CONCLUSIONS: Rigid gas permeable contact lens wearers had statistically worse habitual high-contrast visual acuity compared with spectacle wearers, but no difference was present under best-corrected conditions. We hypothesize that rigid gas permeable contact lens wearers were not wearing their optimal correction habitually. Traditional soft contact lens wearers had significantly worse low-contrast visual acuity. They also had a larger difference between their best-corrected high- and low-contrast visual acuity scores compared with rigid gas permeable contact lens wearers.
METHODS: High- and low-contrast visual acuity was measured in 116 rigid gas permeable contact lens wearers, 51 spectacle wearers, and 50 soft contact lens wearers with habitual and best correction. Twenty-nine of the soft contact lens wearers reported that they wore disposable contact lenses (discarded on a monthly or more frequent basis), whereas the other 21 soft contact lens wearers wore traditional soft contact lenses.
RESULTS: Rigid gas permeable contact lens wearers had statistically worse high-contrast habitual visual acuity than spectacle wearers (Tukey-Kramer, p = 0.0075). Traditional soft contact lens wearers had significantly worse low-contrast visual acuity compared with all other groups (Tukey-Kramer, p < 0.02 for each comparison). Traditional soft contact lens wearers had a significantly larger difference between high- and low-contrast visual acuity with best correction compared with rigid gas permeable wearers (Tukey-Kramer, p = 0.0099).
CONCLUSIONS: Rigid gas permeable contact lens wearers had statistically worse habitual high-contrast visual acuity compared with spectacle wearers, but no difference was present under best-corrected conditions. We hypothesize that rigid gas permeable contact lens wearers were not wearing their optimal correction habitually. Traditional soft contact lens wearers had significantly worse low-contrast visual acuity. They also had a larger difference between their best-corrected high- and low-contrast visual acuity scores compared with rigid gas permeable contact lens wearers.