Article

Accuracy of four commonly used color vision tests in the identification of cone disorders.

Department of Ophthalmology, Erasmus Medical Center , Rotterdam , The Netherlands .
Ophthalmic epidemiology (Impact Factor: 1.27). 04/2013; 20(2):114-22. DOI: 10.3109/09286586.2012.759596
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Abstract Purpose: To determine which color vision test is most appropriate for the identification of cone disorders. Methods: In a clinic-based study, four commonly used color vision tests were compared between patients with cone dystrophy (n = 37), controls with normal visual acuity (n = 35), and controls with low vision (n = 39) and legal blindness (n = 11). Mean outcome measures were specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value and discriminative accuracy of the Ishihara test, Hardy-Rand-Rittler (HRR) test, and the Lanthony and Farnsworth Panel D-15 tests. Results: In the comparison between cone dystrophy and all controls, sensitivity, specificity and predictive value were highest for the HRR and Ishihara tests. When patients were compared to controls with normal vision, discriminative accuracy was highest for the HRR test (c-statistic for PD-axes 1, for T-axis 0.851). When compared to controls with poor vision, discriminative accuracy was again highest for the HRR test (c-statistic for PD-axes 0.900, for T-axis 0.766), followed by the Lanthony Panel D-15 test (c-statistic for PD-axes 0.880, for T-axis 0.500) and Ishihara test (c-statistic 0.886). Discriminative accuracies of all tests did not further decrease when patients were compared to controls who were legally blind. Conclusions: The HRR, Lanthony Panel D-15 and Ishihara all have a high discriminative accuracy to identify cone disorders, but the highest scores were for the HRR test. Poor visual acuity slightly decreased the accuracy of all tests. Our advice is to use the HRR test since this test also allows for evaluation of all three color axes and quantification of color defects.

2 Followers
 · 
128 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cited By (since 1996):1, Export Date: 18 October 2014
    Progress in Retinal and Eye Research 01/2014; 42:1-26. · 9.90 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hereditary cone disorders (CDs) are characterized by defects of the cone photoreceptors or retinal pigment epithelium underlying the macula, and include achromatopsia (ACHM), cone dystrophy (COD), cone-rod dystrophy (CRD), color vision impairment, Stargardt disease (STGD) and other maculopathies. Forty-two genes have been implicated in non-syndromic inherited CDs. Mutations in the 5 genes implicated in ACHM explain ∼93% of the cases. On the contrary, only 21% of CRDs (17 genes) and 25% of CODs (8 genes) have been elucidated. The fact that the large majority of COD and CRD-associated genes are yet to be discovered hints towards the existence of unknown cone-specific or cone-sensitive processes. The ACHM-associated genes encode proteins that fulfill crucial roles in the cone phototransduction cascade, which is the most frequently compromised (10 genes) process in CDs. Another 7 CD-associated proteins are required for transport processes towards or through the connecting cilium. The remaining CD-associated proteins are involved in cell membrane morphogenesis and maintenance, synaptic transduction, and the retinoid cycle. Further novel genes are likely to be identified in the near future by combining large-scale DNA sequencing and transcriptomics technologies. For 31 of 42 CD-associated genes, mammalian models are available, 14 of which have successfully been used for gene augmentation studies. However, gene augmentation for CDs should ideally be developed in large mammalian models with cone-rich areas, which are currently available for only 11 CD genes. Future research will aim to elucidate the remaining causative genes, identify the molecular mechanisms of CD, and develop novel therapies aimed at preventing vision loss in individuals with CD in the future.
    Progress in Retinal and Eye Research 05/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.preteyeres.2014.05.001 · 9.90 Impact Factor

Similar Publications