Literature DB >> 16494608

Refraction and visual acuity measurements: what are their measurement uncertainties?

George Smith1.   

Abstract

The details of refractive and visual acuity measurement have been examined using the International Standards Organization (ISO) guidelines for the estimates of uncertainty. It is clear that there is a number of sources of uncertainty in quoted values. Some of these can be analysed statistically, using the ISO guidelines and can be used to estimate an uncertainty in the final recorded values. These should be regarded as minimum uncertainties because there are other factors involved such as unwanted accommodation, which will affect the final outcome. The analysis shows that the standard uncertainty (+/- one standard deviation) is about 0.3 D in refractive error measurement and about 0.04 in LogMAR acuity. The normally quoted expanded uncertainty, which provides a 95 per cent confidence level, would then be 0.6 D in refractive measurement and 0.08 in LogMAR acuity.

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16494608     DOI: 10.1111/j.1444-0938.2006.00022.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Exp Optom        ISSN: 0816-4622            Impact factor:   2.742


  8 in total

1.  Development of Visual Memory Capacity Following Early-Onset and Extended Blindness.

Authors:  Priti Gupta; Pragya Shah; Sharon Gilad Gutnick; Marin Vogelsang; Lukas Vogelsang; Kashish Tiwari; Tapan Gandhi; Suma Ganesh; Pawan Sinha
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2022-05-09

2.  Influence of the invariant refraction assumption in studies of formulas for monofocal and multifocal intraocular lens power calculation.

Authors:  Joaquín Fernández; Manuel Rodríguez-Vallejo; Javier Martínez; Noemi Burguera; David Piñero
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-02-08       Impact factor: 2.029

3.  Combined anterior segment OCT and wavefront-based autorefractor using a shared beam.

Authors:  Marco Ruggeri; Giulia Belloni; Yu-Cherng Chang; Heather Durkee; Ettore Masetti; Florence Cabot; Sonia H Yoo; Arthur Ho; Jean-Marie Parel; Fabrice Manns
Journal:  Biomed Opt Express       Date:  2021-10-06       Impact factor: 3.562

4.  Prediction of myopia development among Chinese school-aged children using refraction data from electronic medical records: A retrospective, multicentre machine learning study.

Authors:  Haotian Lin; Erping Long; Xiaohu Ding; Hongxing Diao; Zicong Chen; Runzhong Liu; Jialing Huang; Jingheng Cai; Shuangjuan Xu; Xiayin Zhang; Dongni Wang; Kexin Chen; Tongyong Yu; Dongxuan Wu; Xutu Zhao; Zhenzhen Liu; Xiaohang Wu; Yuzhen Jiang; Xiao Yang; Dongmei Cui; Wenyan Liu; Yingfeng Zheng; Lixia Luo; Haibo Wang; Chi-Chao Chan; Ian G Morgan; Mingguang He; Yizhi Liu
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2018-11-06       Impact factor: 11.069

5.  Quality of eyeglass prescriptions from a low-cost wavefront autorefractor evaluated in rural India: results of a 708-participant field study.

Authors:  Nicholas J Durr; Shivang R Dave; Daryl Lim; Sanil Joseph; Thulasiraj D Ravilla; Eduardo Lage
Journal:  BMJ Open Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-06-14

6.  Teaming-up nurses with ophthalmologists to expand the reach of eye care in a middle-income country: Validation of health data acquisition by nursing staff in a telemedicine strategy.

Authors:  Cassia Garcia Moraes Pagano; Tais de Campos Moreira; Daniel Sganzerla; Ana Maria Frölich Matzenbacher; Amanda Gomes Faria; Lucas Matturro; Felipe Cezar Cabral; Dimitris Rucks Varvaki Rados; Anelise Decavata Szortyka; Maicon Falavigna; Maria Eulalia Vinadé Chagas; Erno Harzheim; Marcelo Gonçalves; Roberto Umpierre; Aline Lutz de Araujo
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-11-30       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 7.  Refractive Outcomes after Cataract Surgery.

Authors:  Ramin Khoramnia; Gerd Auffarth; Grzegorz Łabuz; George Pettit; Rajaraman Suryakumar
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-01-19

8.  The art of nomograms.

Authors:  Samuel Arba Mosquera; Diego de Ortueta; Shwetabh Verma
Journal:  Eye Vis (Lond)       Date:  2018-01-25
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.