Journal of Ophthalmic and Vision Research

Published date: Dec 08 2025

Journal Title: Journal of Ophthalmic and Vision Research

Issue title: ‎Volume 20 - 2025

Pages: 1 - 10

DOI: 10.18502/jovr.v20.16610

Fatema Noblefatema786noblee@gmail.comLaxmi Eye Hospital and Laxmi Charitable Trust, Panvel, Maharashtra

Suhas Haldipurkarsuhashaldipurkar1@laxmieye.orgLaxmi Eye Hospital and Laxmi Charitable Trust, Panvel, Maharashtra

Vijay Shettydrvshety@yahoo.comLaxmi Eye Hospital and Laxmi Charitable Trust, Panvel, Maharashtra

Tanvi Haldipurkartanuuh8@gmail.comLaxmi Eye Hospital and Laxmi Charitable Trust, Panvel, Maharashtra

Rita Dhamankardhamankaar@gmail.comLaxmi Eye Hospital and Laxmi Charitable Trust, Panvel, Maharashtra

Devendra Venkatramanidev.venkataramani@gmail.comLaxmi Eye Hospital and Laxmi Charitable Trust, Panvel, Maharashtra

Shreyas Dhamorikarshreyasd221@gmail.comLaxmi Eye Hospital and Laxmi Charitable Trust, Panvel, Maharashtra

Sarita Deshpandesmdoc2020@gmail.comLaxmi Eye Hospital and Laxmi Charitable Trust, Panvel, Maharashtra

Maninder Singh Setiamaninder.setia@karanamconsultancy.inLaxmi Eye Hospital and Laxmi Charitable Trust, Panvel, Maharashtra

Purpose: To determine the optimal cut-offs for Pelli-Robson (PR) and Spaeth/Richman contrast sensitivity (SPARCS) test scores for diagnosing glaucoma and to compare PR and SPARCS scores (total and individual quadrants) for assessing contrast sensitivity in patients with glaucoma.

Methods: This study was a single-center, cross-sectional, two-group analysis of 87 glaucomatous eyes and 87 non-glaucomatous control eyes. We assessed visual acuity, refraction, intraocular pressure (IOP), cup disc ratio (CDR), and anterior chamber depth in these patients. The PR score for central contrast sensitivity was obtained, and the SPARCS scores were generated for four outer zones and the central region.

Results: The mean IOP [SD] was significantly higher in the glaucoma group (19.3 [5.2] mm Hg) compared with the control group (17.5 [3.6] mm Hg; P = 0.008). The mean CDR [SD] was significantly higher in the glaucoma group compared with the control group (0.73 [0.14] vs. 0.46 [0.12]; P < 0.001). The mean [SD] PR score (1.48 [0.17] vs. 1.23 [0.19]; P < 0.001) and total SPARCS score (78.2 [5.1] vs. 62.4 [11.2]; P < 0.001) were significantly higher in the control group compared with the glaucoma group. The optimal cut-off for identifying glaucoma was 1.35 for the PR score and 70 for the total SPARCS score. At this value of SPARCS score, the sensitivity for identifying glaucoma was 83.9% (95% CI, 74.5 to 90.9), specificity was 96.6% (95% CI, 90.3 to 99.3), positive predictive value (PPV) was 96.1% (95% CI, 88.9 to 99.2), and negative predictive value (NPV) was 85.7% (95% CI, 77.2 to 92.0). The area under the curve (AUC) value was significantly higher for the total SPARCS score compared with the PR score (0.92 vs. 0.83; P = 0.001). All individual SPARCS scores (superior nasal, superior temporal, central, inferior nasal, and inferior temporal) had lower AUC, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV values compared with the total SPARCS score.

Conclusion: At the optimal cut-offs, the total SPARCS score offers significantly better diagnostic test properties for identifying glaucoma compared with the PR score.

Keywords: Contrast Sensitivity, Diagnostic Test Properties, Glaucoma, Pelli-Robson, Spaeth/Richman Contrast Sensitivity Test

1. Richman J, Lorenzana LL, Lankaranian D, Dugar J, Mayer J, Wizov SS, et al. Importance of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity in patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2010;128:1576–1582.

2. Benjamin W, Borish I. Borish’s clinical refraction. 2nd ed. Butterworth Heinemann/Elsevier; 2006.

3. Campbell FW, Green DG. Optical and retinal factors affecting visual resolution. J Physiol 1965;181:576–593.

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

5. 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;100:135–146.

6. Fitzke FW. Clinical psychophysics. Eye 1988;2:S233–S241.

7. Stamper RL. Psychophysical changes in glaucoma. Surv Ophthalmol 1989;33:309–318.

8. Pelli D, Robson J, Wilkins A. The design of a new letter chart for measuring contrast sensitivity. Clin Vis Sci 1988;2:187–199.

9. Woods R, Woods J. The role of contrast sensitivity charts and contrast letter charts in clinical practice. Clin Exp Optom 1995;78:43–57.

10. Pelli DG, Bex P. Measuring contrast sensitivity. Vision Res 2013;90:10–14.

11. Rao A, Pal A, Mohapatra S. Spaeth/Richman contrast sensitivity in staging glaucoma. Transl Vis Sci Technol 2020;9:39.

12. 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.

13. 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;100:1421–1426.

14. Hawkins AS, Szlyk JP, Ardickas Z, Alexander KR, Wilensky JT. Comparison of contrast sensitivity, visual acuity, and Humphrey visual field testing in patients with glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2003;12:134–138.

15. Spaeth/Richman Contrast Sensitivity Center (SPARCS). About the SPARCS contrast sensitivity test. SPARCS; 2022. https://www.sparcscontrastcenter.com/about_sparcs.php

16. Owsley C. Contrast sensitivity. Ophthalmol Clin North Am 2003;16:171–177.

17. Gupta L, Waisbourd M, Sanvicente CT, Hsieh M, Wizov SS, Spaeth EE, et al. Establishment of a normative database and evaluation of the test-retest repeatability of the Spaeth/Richman contrast sensitivity test. Jpn J Ophthalmol 2019;63:73–81.

18. Hirasawa K, Shoji N, Morita T, Shimizu K. A modified glaucoma staging system based on visual field index. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2013;251:2747–2752.

19. Richman J, Spaeth GL, Wirostko B. Contrast sensitivity basics and a critique of currently available tests. J Cataract Refract Surg 2013;39:1100–1106.

20. Ross JE, Bron AJ, Clarke DD. Contrast sensitivity and visual disability in chronic simple glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 1984;68:821–827.

21. Sample PA, Juang PS, Weinreb RN. Isolating the effects of primary open-angle glaucoma on the contrast sensitivity function. Am J Ophthalmol 1991;112:308–316.

22. Ichhpujani P, Thakur S, Spaeth GL. Contrast sensitivity and glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2020;29:71–75.

23. Wilensky JT, Hawkins A. Comparison of contrast sensitivity, visual acuity, and Humphrey visual field testing in patients with glaucoma. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 2001;99:213–217.

24. Thakur S, Ichhpujani P, Kumar S, Kaur R, Sood S. Assessment of contrast sensitivity by Spaeth Richman Contrast Sensitivity Test and Pelli Robson Chart Test in patients with varying severity of glaucoma. Eye 2018;32:1392–1400.

25. Ichhpujani P, Singh T, Thakur S, Singh RB, Kumar S. Assessing glaucoma deterioration using Spaeth/Richman contrast sensitivity test. Ther Adv Ophthalmol 2020;12:2515841420977412.

26. Fatehi N, Nowroozizadeh S, Henry S, Coleman AL, Caprioli J, Nouri-Mahdavi K. Association of structural and functional measures with contrast sensitivity in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2017;178:129–139.

27. 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.