RESUMEN

Introduction This study proposes the utility of an infrared auto refractometer for meibography and compares miebographs obtained by an auto refractometer to meibographs obtained by a designated meibography machine. Methods A prospective observational comparative study of meibographs of patients with clinical signs of meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) using a designated meibography machine and an infrared auto refractometer. Five masked, experienced interpreters graded the images of the two machines. The Kappa test was used to calculate Intra-rater and inter-rater agreements between the meibography machine and automated refractor grading of meibomian gland dysfunction. Results High-quality photos of all 30 eyes delineating the meibomian glands (MG) were successfully obtained with both the meibography machine and the autorefractor. Both methods had a good intra-rater agreement (κ= 0.667 to 0.784, average 0.738). Poor to fair interrater agreement was noticed in the grading of autorefractor images (k= -0.030 to 0.343, average 0.092) and poor to moderate agreements between investigators for meibography machine images (K= -0.016 to 0.420, average 0.173). Conclusion A commercially available auto refractometer could capture high-quality non-contact IR digital meibographs.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Despite the well-known reproducibility issues of subjective refraction, most studies evaluating autorefractors compared differences between the device and subjective refraction. This work evaluated the performance of a novel handheld Hartmann-Shack-based autorefractor using an alternative protocol, which considered the inherent variability of subjective refraction. METHODS: Participants underwent an initial measurement with a desktop autorefractor, two subjective refractions (SR1 and SR2) and a final measurement with the QuickSee Free (QSFree) portable autorefractor. Autorefractor performance was evaluated by comparing the differences between the QSFree and each of the subjective refractions with the difference between the subjective refractions (SR1 vs. SR2) using Bland-Altman analysis and percentage of agreement. RESULTS: A total of 75 subjects (53 ± 14 years) were enrolled in the study. The average difference in the absolute spherical equivalent (M) between the QSFree and the SR1 and SR2 was ±0.24 and ±0.02 D, respectively, that is, very similar or smaller than the SR1 versus SR2 difference (±0.26 D). Average differences in astigmatic components were found to be negligible. The results demonstrate that differences between QSFree and both subjective refractions in J0 and J45 were within ±0.50 D for at least 96% of the measurements. The limits of agreement (LOAs) of the differences between QSFree and SR1, as well as QSFree and SR2, were higher than those observed between SR1 and SR2 for M, J0 and J45 . CONCLUSIONS: A protocol was designed and validated for the evaluation of a refractive device to account for the variability of subjective refraction. This protocol was used to evaluate a novel portable autorefractor and observed a smaller difference between the device and subjective refractions than the difference between the two subjective refraction measurements in terms of mean bias error, although the standard deviation was higher.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

ABSTRACT Objective: To assess the performance of a portable autorefractor as refractor and screening tool for refractive errors in schoolchildren. Methods: Cross-sectional observational study. Refractometric measurements of children between 5 and 10 years old were obtained through four methods: 2WIN under non-cycloplegic conditions, and 2WIN, conventional autorefractor, and retinoscopy, under cycloplegic conditions. Correlations and agreement between the methods and accuracy of the portable autorefractor to define whether to prescribe glasses were assessed. Results: The mean age ± standard deviation was 6.87 ± 1.42 years. The portable autorefractor without cycloplegia showed a high correlation with retinoscopy (0.77) but tended to underestimate hyperopia and overestimate high astigmatism. Regarding screening for prescription of glasses in comparison with the reference method "retinoscopy," the sensitivity of the portable autorefractor without cycloplegia was calculated to be 100,00% and the specificity, 34.3%. Conclusion: The portable autorefractor should be used as a screening tool and, when prescribing glasses, the tendency of underestimating hyperopia and overestimating high astigmatism should be kept in mind.

RESUMO Objetivo: Avaliar o desempenho de um autorrefrator portátil como refrator e ferramenta de triagem para erros de refração em crianças em idade escolar. Métodos: Estudo observacional transversal. As medidas refratométricas de crianças de 5 a 10 anos foram obtidas por meio de quatro métodos: 2WIN em condições não cicloplégicas e 2WIN, autorrefrator convencional e retinoscopia, em condições cicloplégicas. Foram avaliadas as correlações e a concordância entre os métodos e a acurácia do autorrefrator portátil para definir a prescrição de óculos. Resultados: A média de idade ± desvio-padrão foi de 6,87 ± 1,42 anos. O autorrefrator portátil sem cicloplegia apresentou alta correlação com a retinoscopia (0,77), mas tendeu a subestimar a hipermetropia e a superestimar o alto astigmatismo. Em relação à triagem para prescrição de óculos em comparação com o método de referência retinoscópio, a sensibilidade do autorrefrator portátil sem cicloplegia foi calculada em 100,00% e a especificidade, em 34,3%. Conclusão: O autorrefrator portátil deve ser usado como ferramenta de triagem e, ao se prescreverem óculos, deve-se ter em mente a tendência de subestimar a hipermetropia e superestimar o alto astigmatismo.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND:  Refractive error is the most common cause of decreased visual acuity. Refractive measurement in adults consists of cycloplegic (objective) and manifest (subjective) refraction. Although the effectiveness of autorefraction is a crucial factor, there needs to be more information on its accuracy and precision on each autorefractor compared with subjective measurement in Thai patients. OBJECTIVE:  To compare the accuracy and precision of the two autorefractors' findings in Rajavithi Hospital, OptoChek Plus, and TOMEY Auto Refractometer RC-5000, with each other and with those of the subjective method. MATERIALS & METHODS:  An observational study was conducted at the Ophthalmology clinic in Rajavithi Hospital from March 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022. All subjects were tested using the two autorefractors (OptoChek Plus and TOMEY Auto Refractometer RC-5000) and subjective refraction. One eye per subject was included in the study. RESULTS:  Forty-eight patients (48 eyes) were enrolled in the study. The difference between spherical powers obtained by OptoChek and subjective refraction was not significantly different; however, there was a significant difference between those calculated by Tomey and the subjective method (p=0.77, p=0.04 respectively). The variations between cylindrical powers arrived at by the two autorefraction techniques and those calculated by the subjective method were significantly different (OptoChek and Tomey p-=0.01, p-value<0.001, respectively). In addition, 95% of the limit of agreement (95% of LOA) was low in the cylindrical measurement of each autorefractor compared with subjective refraction. (84.61%, 86.36%, respectively). No statistically significant difference between the spherical equivalent calculated by the two autorefractors and that of subjective refraction was observed in the present study (OptoChek: p-value=0.26 and Tomey: p-value=0.77). CONCLUSIONS:  There was a clinically significant difference between the cylindrical power calculated by the two autorefractors and those obtained from subjective refraction. Patients with high astigmatism should be monitored closely when measured by autorefractors, as there can be a slightly lower agreement between objective and subjective refraction.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: The ±2.00 D accommodative facility test presents several limitations, including the lack of objective information and inherent characteristics such as vergence/accommodative conflict, change in apparent size of the image, subjective criteria for judging blur and motor reaction time. By using free-space viewing conditions and an open-field autorefractor to monitor the refractive state, we examined the impact of manipulating these factors on the qualitative and quantitative assessment of accommodative facility. METHODS: Twenty-five healthy young adults (24.5 ± 4.5 years) took part in this study. Participants performed three accommodative facility tests (adapted flipper, 4D free-space viewing and 2.5D free-space viewing) under both monocular and binocular conditions in random order. A binocular open-field autorefractor was used to assess the accommodative response continuously, and these data were used to characterise accommodative facility quantitatively and qualitatively. RESULTS: There were statistically significant differences between the three testing methods both quantitatively (p < 0.001) and qualitatively (p = 0.02). For the same accommodative demand, a lower number of cycles was obtained for the adapted flipper condition in comparison with the 4D free-space viewing test (corrected p-value < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.78). However, this comparison did not reach statistical significance for qualitative measures of accommodative facility (corrected p-value = 0.82, Cohen's d 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These data provide evidence that the qualitative assessment of accommodative facility is not influenced by the inherent limitations of the ±2.00 D flipper test. The use of qualitative outcomes by incorporating an open-field autorefractor allows examiners to increase the validity of the accommodative facility test in both clinical and research settings.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Clinical Relevance Background: Steady-state accommodation is frequently evaluated with open-field autorefractors; however there is no consensus regarding the optimal test duration. Our results allow us to standardise the procedure followed for the assessment of the steady-state accommodative response in clinical and laboratory settings and may be of great relevance in time-constrained situations. BACKGROUND: The present study aims to determine the optimal recording time to assess the magnitude and variability of the accommodative response with a binocular open-field autorefractor. METHODS: The steady-state accommodative response of 84 healthy undergraduate students was dynamically measured using the Grand Seiko WAM-5500 autorefractor at 500 cm, 40 cm and 20 cm for 90 s while participants maintained focus on a stationary target. We examined the reliability and level of agreement between four time intervals (the first 10-s, 30-s, 60-s and 90-s) at three accommodative demands (0.2D, 2.5D and 5D). RESULTS: The magnitude of accommodation showed an excellent level of reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]> 0.90) for the comparisons between the 90-s, 60-s and 30-s time intervals at the three viewing distances tested. However, when including the 10-s interval, there was a moderate reduction of the reliability indices and an increase of the mean difference between two time intervals (intra-class correlation [ICC] ranging from 0.89 to 0.97; and ESs ranging from 0.16 to 0.42). For the variability of accommodation, we observed an excellent reliability for the comparisons of the 90-s and 60-s measures at the three accommodative demands (ICC: 0.95-0.96), whereas for the rest of comparisons we observed from moderate to good levels of reliability. CONCLUSION: Our data indicate that of 30-s and 60-s are enough to accurately assess the magnitude and variability of the accommodative response with the WAM-5500 autorefractor, respectively.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fopht.2022.1049622.].

RESUMEN

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the occurrence and range of refractive errors in dogs of different ages. A total of 99 clinically healthy, mixed-breed mesocephalic dogs were included in the study and divided into three different age groups according to the current human/pet analogy chart: 40 adults (23 males, 17 females, 1-8 years old, 3-70 kg), 21 seniors (14 males, 7 females, 6-11 years old, 7-42 kg), and 38 geriatrics (22 males, 16 females, 8-13 years old, 5-45 kg). All the dogs underwent an ophthalmic examination, including Schirmer tear test, tonometry, biomicroscopy, and ophthalmoscopy. Neither eye drops nor pharmacological sedatives were administered before the autorefractometry. The refractive states were assessed bilaterally using a hand-held Retinomax 3 (Righton) autorefractor. The results underwent statistical analysis using Statistica v12 software (ANOVA and t-test). A P-value < 0.05 was considered as significant. Emmetropia, defined as a refractive state > -0.5 D and < +0.5 D, was found in 36% of the adult, 43% of the senior, and 38% of the geriatric patients. Anisometropia was found in 1% of the adult, 9.5% of the senior and 5.5% of the geriatric dogs when the refractive power of the two eyes differed ≥ 1.0 myopia ≤ -0.5 D and hyperopia ≥ +0.5 D were found in 23% and 41% of the adult eye globes as well as 24% and 33% in the senior dogs and 15% and 47% in the geriatric dogs, respectively. The maximal values of the myopia in the adult and geriatric dogs were -2.5 D and -2.75 D, respectively. The maximal values of the hyperopia in the adult and geriatric dogs were 1.75 D and 2.5 D, respectively. No statistically significant correlation was found between the groups. Ametropia is a common refractive state for dogs of different ages. The most frequent refractive state in ametropic mixed-bed dogs in all age groups is hyperopia.

RESUMEN

Background: The accuracy of open-field autorefractors is important for vision screening, clinical care, and vision research, especially in patients with childhood myopia. TOPCON KR3000 autorefractor was conventional autorefractor and subjective refraction after cycloplegia was gold criteria for assessing the refraction. Results of refractive error in Chinese school-aged children obtained by three methods were evaluated and compared. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted. A total of 89 patients (with a total of 177 eyes) diagnosed as refractive error in the Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine from July 2020 to September 2020 were sequentially enrolled in this study. All subjects underwent routine ophthalmic examination to exclude other ocular diseases and had a best corrected visual acuity no less than 0.1 The spherical diopter (SD), spherical equivalence (SE), and astigmatism (J0 and J45) were determined in patients before cycloplegia using two autorefractors, and again after cycloplegia. Subjective refraction results were obtained simultaneously after cycloplegia as gold criteria for comparison. A comparison of data between three methods was performed using paired t-tests and presented graphically using Bland-Altman plots. Results: Before cycloplegia, the SD and SE results from WAM were 0.14 D and 0.12 D more positive than the reading from TOPCON (P=0.011 and P=0.021, respectively). The SD measured by WAM and TOPCON was 0.31 D and 0.45 D more negative than the values obtained by subjective refraction after cycloplegia, respectively (P<0.001 and P<0.001, respectively). The SE readings also showed a similar trend (P<0.001, P<0.001). After cycloplegia, the SD and SE measurement obtained with WAM were 0.13 D and 0.12 D more positive than those measured by TOPCON (P<0.001 and P<0.001, respectively), and this was not significantly different to the results obtained using subjective refraction. However, the results of SD, SE, and J0 measured by the TOPCON were significantly different from the results obtained using subjective refraction (P<0.001, P<0.001, and P=0.002, respectively). Conclusions: In clinical application, the measurements obtained with the WAM-5500 autorefractor were more reliable than those of the TOPCON KR3000 autorefractor in patients with or without cycloplegia. The WAM-5500 Autorefractor represents a reliable and valid objective refraction tool for optometric practice.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To determine whether accommodative errors in emmetropes and myopes are systematically different, and the effect of using different instruments and metrics. METHODS: Seventy-six adults aged 18-27 years comprising 24 emmetropes (spherical equivalent refraction of the dominant eye +0.04 ± 0.03 D) and 52 myopes (-2.73 ± 0.22 D) were included. Accommodation responses were measured with a Grand Seiko WAM-5500 and a Hartmann-Shack Complete Ophthalmic Analysis System aberrometer, using pupil plane (Zernike and Seidel refraction) and retinal image plane (neural sharpness-NS; and visual Strehl ratio for modulation transfer function-VSMTF) metrics at 40, 33 and 25 cm. Accommodation stimuli were presented to the corrected dominant eye, and responses, referenced to the corneal plane, were determined in the fellow eye. Linear mixed-effects models were used to determine influence of the refractive group, the measurement method, accommodation stimulus, age, race, parental myopia, gender and binocular measures of heterophoria, accommodative convergence/accommodation and convergence accommodation/convergence ratios. RESULTS: Lags of accommodation were affected significantly by the measurement method (p < 0.001), the refractive group (p = 0.003), near heterophoria (p = 0.002) and accommodative stimulus (p < 0.05), with significant interactions between some of these variables. Overall, emmetropes had smaller lags of accommodation than myopes with respective means ± standard errors of 0.31 ± 0.08 D and 0.61 ± 0.06 D (p = 0.003). Lags were largest for the Grand Seiko and Zernike defocus, intermediate for NS and VSMTF, and least for Seidel defocus. CONCLUSIONS: The mean lag of accommodation in emmetropes is approximately equal to the previously reported depth of focus. Myopes had larger (double) lags than emmetropes. Differences between methods and instruments could be as great as 0.50 D, and this must be considered when comparing studies and outcomes. Accommodative lag increased with the accommodation stimulus, but only for methods using a fixed small pupil diameter.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To investigate the difference of spherical equivalent (SE) and pupil diameter in adult patients with intermittent exotropia (IXT) under various viewing conditions before and after surgery. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 23 adult patients who underwent a surgery for IXT. The angle of deviation was measured by the prism and alternative cover test. Refractive error and pupil diameter were measured using the Grand Seiko WAM-5500 open-field autorefractor under binocular and monocular viewing conditions when patients stared at distance (6 m) and near (33 cm). Regression analyses were performed between accommodative load and the angle of deviation. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients (10 males, 13 females) with a mean age of 31.17±8.95 years, of whom 13 (56.5%) had the right eye as the dominant eye. The mean angle of deviation at near and at distance was 69.57±26.37 and 65.43±28.92 prism diopters respectively. There were no significant differences in accommodative response and pupil diameter between the dominant and non-dominant eyes. SE decreased when patients changed from monocular to binocular viewing, and from distant to near viewing (all P< 0.05), so as the pupil diameter (all P< 0.001). During binocular, not monocular viewing, SE was significantly greater after operation than it was before operation (P< 0.001). Accommodative load and pupillary constriction narrowed (p< 0.001) after the operation. Linear regression analysis showed a correlation between the angle of deviation at distance and accommodative load at distance (r2=0.278, p=0.010) and at near (r2=0.332, p=0.005). CONCLUSION: In order to maintain ocular alignment, patients with IXT suffer a large accommodative load, which is related to the angle of deviation. Surgery helps eliminating extra accommodation.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

AIM: To evaluate the accuracy, efficiency, and reliability of a handheld infrared eccentric autorefractor (hICA) with artificial intelligence (AI) by comparing its refraction measurements to those recorded using hICA and a clinical table-mounted automatic refractor (TAR). METHODS: A cross-sectional study using three optometers, including hICA with or without AI and TAR, for refractometry of adults (aged 19-49 years old) with no signs of ocular disease or trauma in the absence of cycloplegia. Right and left eye refraction data were recorded, including the spherical equivalent (SE), diopter of spherical power (DS), diopter of cylindrical power (DC) decomposed into vectors J0 and J45, and measurement times. To avoid analytical difficulties associated with the interdependence of observations between eyes from the same individual, the Generalized Estimation Equation was used to compare the SE, DS, J0 and J45 measurements, and the times thereof, among the different groups. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Spearman's rank correlation coefficient were used to evaluate correlations among the measurements recorded by the three different instruments. Bland-Altman were used to analyze the precision of the equipment by the agreement. RESULTS: A total of 70 patients (140 eyes; mean age: 31.37y; range: 19-49y) were assessed using refractometry. In a brightly lit environment, there was no significant difference between the mean SE recorded using TAR and that recorded using hICA with AI or without AI (both P>0.05). In an intense-light environment, hICA equipped with AI showed a better detection rate than without AI. Light intensity had a greater effect on dioptric measurements recorded using hICA without AI (P<0.001) than on those recorded using the one equipped with AI (P<0.05). Measurement times varied significantly between the different light intensities and instruments (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: For the normal human eyes, AI may improve the accuracy, efficiency, and reliability of measurements recorded using hICA in various light environments.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To assess the performance of machine learning (ML) ensemble models for predicting patient subjective refraction (SR) using demographic factors, wavefront aberrometry data, and measurement quality related metrics taken with a low-cost portable autorefractor. METHODS: Four ensemble models were evaluated for predicting individual power vectors (M, J0, and J45) corresponding to the eyeglass prescription of each patient. Those models were random forest regressor (RF), gradient boosting regressor (GB), extreme gradient boosting regressor (XGB), and a custom assembly model (ASB) that averages the first three models. Algorithms were trained on a dataset of 1244 samples and the predictive power was evaluated with 518 unseen samples. Variables used for the prediction were age, gender, Zernike coefficients up to 5th order, and pupil related metrics provided by the autorefractor. Agreement with SR was measured using Bland-Altman analysis, overall prediction error, and percentage of agreement between the ML predictions and subjective refractions for different thresholds (0.25 D, 0.5 D). RESULTS: All models considerably outperformed the predictions from the autorefractor, while ASB obtained the best results. The accuracy of the predictions for each individual power vector component was substantially improved resulting in a ± 0.63 D, ±0.14D, and ±0.08 D reduction in the 95% limits of agreement of the error distribution for M, J0, and J45, respectively. The wavefront-aberrometry related variables had the biggest impact on the prediction, while demographic and measurement quality-related features showed a heterogeneous but consistent predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that ML is effective for improving precision in predicting patient's SR from objective measurements taken with a low-cost portable device.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus (AAPOS) issued a 2021 update of Uniform Validation Guidelines for instrument-based pediatric vision screeners. With each update it is important for each manufacturer to update the Instrument Referral Criteria (IRC) programed into their devices in order to optimize sensitivity and specificity to detect AAPOS criteria. METHODS: De-identified data comparing photoscreening with simultaneous confirmatory examinations constituted separate cohorts for the development of IRC via receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The refractions of the devices were also compared. RESULTS: This study defines three sets of refractive IRC (Sensitive, Medium, and Specific) for three leading infrared photoscreening devices, PlusoptiX A12, Welch-Allyn SPOT, and Adaptica 2WIN for children < 4 and ≥ 4 years in order to better target the 2021 AAPOS guidelines. The cohorts were similar but the SPOT group (n=755, mean age 9) was older with more astigmatism and the 2WIN (n=1362, mean age 7) was younger with more hyperopia and anisometropia compared to the cohort for PlusoptiX A12 (n=616, mean age 8). The age-based, medium magnitude IRC for anisometropia, hyperopia, astigmatism and myopia for SPOT were: <4y: 1.5, 1.75, 3.25, 3.5 and ≥4y: 1.5, 1.75, 2.25, 2.0; for PlusoptiX: <4y: 1.75, 3.0, 3.5, 3.5 and ≥4y: 1.75, 3.0, 2.5, 2.5; and for 2WIN: <4y: 1.75, 2.5, 3.5, 3.5 and ≥4y: 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 2.0. The mean ABCD ellipsoid spectacle matches differed; SPOT: 1.8±1.3 (better) versus PlusoptiX: 1.9±1.6 and 2WIN: 2.2±1.4 (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The 2021 AAPOS exam guidelines foster early specificity before age 4 and sensitivity after age 4. These evidence-based IRC for current SPOT, PlusoptiX, and 2WIN photoscreeners should allow device manufacturers the data necessary to adjust their device IRC to maximize specificity, sensitivity or a medium between the two. This paper provides practical suggestions for better validation. Improved early screening combined with thorough treatment should reduce life-long vision impairment due to amblyopia.

RESUMEN

Introduction: Automated vision screening devices such as photoscreeners and autorefractors have been used to accurately identify amblyopia, refractive amblyopia risk factors (ARFs), and refractive error in young children; however, there is conflicting data about the effectiveness of different screening devices. We compared the performance of two commercially available screening devices in preschool children. Methods: Children aged 3 to 5 years attending 5 preschools in Anaheim Elementary School District were screened with the PlusoptiX S12C photoscreener using ROC 3 referral criteria and Retinomax K+3 autorefractor in March 2022. Screened children were offered free cycloplegic eye examinations performed by optometrists on the UCI EyeMobile for Children mobile clinic. Children were evaluated for the presence of refractive ARFs using 2021 American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus age-based referral criteria guidelines for instrument-based screening. Results: A total of 158 children were screened and 79 children received cycloplegic examinations. At least one refractive ARF was found in 20% of examined children, corresponding to a sensitivity/specificity/positive predictive value (PPV)/negative predictive value (NPV) of 94%/89%/68%/98% for the PlusoptiX and 100%/65%/42%/100% for the Retinomax. Discussion: In detecting refractive ARFs, the PlusoptiX was found to have a higher specificity and PPV while the Retinomax had a higher sensitivity and NPV. While both devices demonstrated a high sensitivity and NPV, we found that the PlusoptiX performed better overall as a screening device for our program as the Retinomax referred too many children.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To compare patient preferences for eyeglasses prescribed using a low-cost, portable wavefront autorefractor versus standard subjective refraction (SR). DESIGN: Randomized, cross-over clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 18 to 40 years presenting with refractive errors (REs) to a tertiary eye hospital in Southern India. METHODS: Participants underwent SR followed by autorefraction (AR) using the monocular version of the QuickSee device (PlenOptika Inc). An independent optician, masked to the refraction approach, prepared eyeglasses based on each refraction approach. Participants (masked to refraction source) were randomly assigned to use SR- or AR-based eyeglasses first, followed by the other pair, for 1 week each. At the end of each week, participants had their vision checked and were interviewed about their experience with the eyeglasses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients preferring eyeglasses were chosen using AR and SR. RESULTS: The 400 participants enrolled between March 26, 2018, and August 2, 2019, had a mean (standard deviation) age of 28.4 (6.6) years, and 68.8% were women. There was a strong correlation between spherical equivalents using SR and AR (r = 0.97, P < 0.001) with a mean difference of -0.07 diopters (D) (95% limits of agreement [LoA], -0.68 to 0.83). Of the 301 patients (75.2%) who completed both follow-up visits, 50.5% (n = 152) and 49.5% (n = 149) preferred glasses prescribed using SR and AR, respectively (95% CI, 45.7-56.3; P = 0.86). There were no differences in demographic or vision characteristics between participants with different preferences (P > 0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: We observed a strong agreement between the prescriptions from SR and AR, and eyeglasses prescribed using SR and AR were equally preferred by patients. Wider use of prescribing based on AR alone in resource-limited settings is supported by these findings.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy and repeatability of refractive errors obtained using three autorefractors based on different measurement principles, vis-à-vis, gold-standard retinoscopy. Methodology: Accuracy of noncycloplegic, sphero-cylindrical refractive error of 234 eyes was obtained using the rotary prism-based RM-8900 closed-field autorefractor, photorefraction based Spot vision screener, wavefront aberrometry based E-see, and streak retinoscopy by four different examiners, masked to the results of each other. Intersession repeatability of autorefractors was determined by repeat measurements in a subset of 40 subjects. Results: Retinoscopy values of M, J0, and J45 power vectors for the cohort ranged from -10.2 to 8 D, -1.4 to 1.8 D, and -0.9 to 1.2 D, respectively. Across autorefractors, the interequipment bias of M and J0 power vectors were statistically insignificant (< ±0.5 D; P > 0.05) but the corresponding limits of agreement were ±2.5 and ±1 D, respectively, without any trend across instruments or the patient's age (P > 0.5). Repeatability of M and J0 power vectors were ±0.75 D and ±0.40 D, respectively, across autorefractors. The range of J45 power vector was too narrow for any meaningful analysis. Conclusions: Refractive errors measured using autorefractors operating on different principles show minimal bias and good short-term repeatability but relatively large agreement limits, vis-à-vis, retinoscopy. Among them, the wavefront aberrometry based E-see autorefractor performs relatively better in all measurement parameters evaluated here. Translational Relevance: Although autorefractor estimates of noncycloplegic refractive error appears independent of their measurement principle, their relatively poor agreement with gold-standard retinoscopy warrants caution while used for screening and quantification of refractive errors.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: While there are numerous studies comparing open-view autorefractors to subjective refraction or other open-view autorefractors, most studies between closed and open-view autorefraction tend to focus on children rather than young adults. The aim of this study was to determine the concordance in non-cycloplegic refractive error between two modern objective autorefractors: the closed-view monocular Topcon TRK-2P and the binocular open-view Grand Seiko WR-5500. METHODS: Fifty young adults aged 20-29 years (mean age 22 ±â€¯1.6 years) underwent non-cycloplegic autorefraction using the Grand Seiko WAM-5500 (open view) and Topcon TRK-2P (closed-view) autorefractors on both eyes. Findings were expressed as the isolated spherical component and were also converted from clinical to vector notation: Mean Spherical Error (MSE) and the astigmatic components J0 and J45. RESULTS: Mean MSE ±â€¯SD was -1.00 ±â€¯2.40D for the Grand Seiko WAM-5500 compared to -1.23 ±â€¯2.29D for the Topcon TRK-2P. Up to seventy-six percent of the cohort had mean spherical errors from the Topcon TRK-2P which fell within ±0.50D of the Grand Seiko reading and 58% fell within ±0.25D. Mean differences between the two instruments were statistically significant for all components (J0, spherical, and MSE) (p < 0.01), except J45 (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The differences in non-cycloplegic MSE between these two instruments are small, but statistically significant. From a clinical perspective the Topcon TRK-2P may serve as a useful starting point for subjective refraction, but additional work is needed to help further minimise differences between the instruments.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Purpose: Assessing binocular accommodative facility (BAF) enables the evaluation of the interaction between the accommodative and vergence systems, which is relevant for the diagnosis of accommodative and binocular disorders. However, the tests used to assess BAF present methodological caveats (e.g., lack of objective control, vergence demands, and image size alterations), limiting its external validity. This study aimed to (i) develop a new objective method to quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate the BAF in free-viewing conditions, and explore its validity by the comparison with the Hart Chart test, and (ii) assess the inter-session reliability of the proposed method.Methods: 33 healthy young adults took part in this study. We used a binocular open-field autorefractor to continuously assess the magnitude of accommodative response during a 60-sec period, while participants repeatedly changed fixation from a far to a near chart when clarity of vision was achieved at each level. Accommodative response data were used to characterize the BAF measurement in quantitative (number of cycles) and qualitative terms (percentage of times that correctly accommodating or dis-accommodating in each level of accommodation as well as the magnitude of the accommodative change).Results: Our data revealed that the new proposed method accurately counted the number of cycles per minute when compared with the Hart Chart test (p = .23, ES = 0.02; mean difference = 0.18 ± 0.85). The inter-session reliability of the proposed method was demonstrated to be excellent (Pearson r and intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.95 to 0.98) for the parameters obtained with the BAF test.Conclusions: The present outcomes evidence that the proposed objective method allows to accurately assess the frequency and precision of BAF by the combination of the classical Hart Chart test and a binocular open-field autorefractometer. Our findings may be of relevance for the diagnosis and treatment of accommodative and binocular disorders.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

@#AIM: To assess the consistency of refractive errors measured by two autorefractors in myopia screening of school-age Chinese children.<p>METHODS: Topcon RM-8900 and Tianle RM-9000 autorefractors were utilized to measure refractive errors under noncycloplegic condition in students aged 6 to 16 years old who were cluster sampled from four primary and secondary schools in Dongli district, Tianjin. Sperman correlation analysis and Bland-Altman method were used to evaluate the consistency of spherical diopters, cylindrical diopters and spherical equivalents measured by the two methods, and the axial difference distribution of astigmatism measured by the two methods was analyzed.<p>RESULTS:A total of 2 276 eyes of 1 138 subjects with a mean age of 10.49±2.66 a were finally enrolled. Spearman correlation analysis showed that sphere(<i>r</i>=0.958, <i>P</i><0.0001), cylinder(<i>r</i>=0.769, <i>P</i><0.0001), and spherical equivalent(<i>r</i>=0.962, <i>P</i><0.0001)measured by Tianle RM-9000 were highly correlated with those measured by Topcon RM-8900, respectively. Bland-Altman analysis showed spherical diopters measured by Tianle RM-9000 were significantly more hyperopic(<i>P</i><0.0001)with a mean difference of 0.44 D(SD: 0.37; 95% <i>CI</i>: -0.27, 1.16)while the maximum absolute value(1.13 D)of the difference within the 95% <i>CI</i> was above the clinically acceptable range; however, no significant difference(<i>P</i>=0.83)was found between cylindrical diopters measured by the two methods with a mean difference of -0.01 D(SD: 0.31; 95% <i>CI</i>=-0.62, 0.61)while the maximum absolute value(0.62 D)of the difference within the 95% <i>CI</i> was clinically acceptable. The proportion of the axial deviation within ±20° was 84.6%(1 503/1 777)in eyes with cylinder ≤-0.25D while that rose to 96.4%(853/885)in eyes with cylinder ≤-0.75D. <p>CONCLUSION: Spherical diopters measured by Tianle RM-9000 have a significant hyperopia bias than those measured by Topcon RM-8900 while the consistency of cylindrical diopters and cylindrical axes is clinically acceptable.