Literature DB >> 16879577

Repeatability (test-retest variability) of refractive error measurement in clinical settings.

Jaakko Leinonen1, Eero Laakkonen, Leila Laatikainen.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To estimate the repeatability of refractive error measurement (REM) in a clinical environment in cataractous, pseudophakic and healthy eyes.
METHODS: The refractive error of patients referred for cataract surgery or consultation measured by ophthalmic professionals was re-examined and the measurement results were compared. A total of 99 eyes from 99 persons (41 cataractous, 36 pseudophakic and 22 healthy eyes) with visual acuity (VA) of 0.3-1.3 (logMAR 0.52 to - 0.11) were included. The differences between measurements 1 and 2 were calculated as 3-dimensional vector values and spherical equivalents (SEs) and expressed as the coefficient of repeatability (CR). The mean time interval between the first and second examinations was 45 days.
RESULTS: The CRs for all eyes for vertical (V), torsional (T) and horizontal (H) vectors were 0.74 D, 0.34 D and 0.93 D, respectively. The CR of SE for all eyes was 0.74 D. Eyes with lower VA (0.3-0.45) had larger variability in vector and SE values but the differences between VA groups were not statistically significant. The difference in the mean defocus equivalent (DE) between measurements 1 and 2 was, however, significantly greater in the group with lower VA. In all VA groups the mean difference vector was very close to the zero vector, which means that there was no systematic difference.
CONCLUSIONS: Repeatability of refractive error measurements in clinical settings has a certain degree of variability. In this series, the variability in eyes with better VA was not great and was in accordance with earlier findings in healthy eyes. Eyes with lower VA had greater variability due to greater tolerance to defocus. Thus, conclusions concerning changes in the refractive state and the need to make changes in the refractive correction of eyes with poorer vision should be made with caution.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16879577     DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0420.2006.00695.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Ophthalmol Scand        ISSN: 1395-3907


  11 in total

1.  [Reproducibility of subjective refraction measurement].

Authors:  H-J Grein; O Schmidt; A Ritsche
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 1.059

2.  Interexaminer reproducibility for subjective refractions for an ametropic participant.

Authors:  Solani David Mathebula; Alan Rubin
Journal:  BMJ Open Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-05-11

3.  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

4.  The Impact of Changes in Corneal Back Surface Astigmatism on the Residual Astigmatic Refractive Error following Routine Uncomplicated Phacoemulsification.

Authors:  Larysa Tutchenko; Sudi Patel; Oleksiy Voytsekhivskyy; Mykhailo Skovron; Olha Horak
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-07-22       Impact factor: 1.909

5.  Evaluations of refraction competencies of ophthalmic technicians in Mozambique.

Authors:  Kajal Shah; Kovin Naidoo; Margarida Chagunda; James Loughman
Journal:  J Optom       Date:  2015-02-07

6.  Determination of Personalized IOL-Constants for the Haigis Formula under Consideration of Measurement Precision.

Authors:  Simon Schröder; Christina Leydolt; Rupert Menapace; Timo Eppig; Achim Langenbucher
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-07-08       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Accuracy of noncycloplegic refraction performed at school screening camps.

Authors:  Rolli Khurana; Shailja Tibrewal; Suma Ganesh; Rajoo Tarkar; Phuong Thi Thanh Nguyen; Zeeshan Siddiqui; Shantanu Dasgupta
Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 1.848

8.  Refractive predictability of partial coherence interferometry and factors that can affect it.

Authors:  Seung Mo Kim; Joohyun Choi; Sangkyung Choi
Journal:  Korean J Ophthalmol       Date:  2009-03-09

9.  Assessment of subjective refraction with a clinical adaptive optics visual simulator.

Authors:  Lucía Hervella; Eloy A Villegas; Pedro M Prieto; Pablo Artal
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2018-10-08       Impact factor: 3.351

10.  A Comparison Between Refraction From an Adaptive Optics Visual Simulator and Clinical Refractions.

Authors:  Juan Tabernero; Carles Otero; Shahina Pardhan
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2020-06-22       Impact factor: 3.283

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.