In Reply We thank Peng and colleagues for their interest and astute comments. Point-by-point responses follow.
Regarding outcome measures: we chose the Pell-Robson chart to assess large-letter contrast sensitivity (CS) because of its well-established efficacy and ability to quantify low spatial frequency processing, such as facial recognition. The 20/25 CS letter chart was used for high spatial frequency processing because, as is referenced in our article,1 it is sensitive to small changes in CS undetected by high-contrast visual acuity.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Rabin JC, Karunathilake N, Patrizi K. Limits of Milk and Dark Chocolate Bars’ Effects on Human Visual Acuity and Contrast Sensitivity—Reply. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2019;137(12):1464. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2019.3795
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: