PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the level of agreement between the 'Representative Value' (RV) of refraction obtained from the Shin-Nippon NVision-K 5001 instrument with values calculated from individual measurement readings using standard algebraic methods. METHODS: Cycloplegic autorefraction readings for 101 myopic children aged 8-13 years (10.9 ± 1.42 years) were obtained using the Shin-Nippon NVision-K 5001. Ten autorefractor measurements were taken for each eye. The spherical equivalent (SE), sphere (Sph) and cylindrical component (Cyl) power of each eye were calculated, firstly, by averaging the 10 repeated measurements (Mean SE, Mean Sph and Mean Cyl), and secondly, by the vector representation method (Vector SE, Vector Sph and Vector Cyl). These calculated values were then compared with those of RV (RV SE, RV Sph and RV Cyl) provided by the proprietary software of the NVision-K 5001 using one-way analysis of variance (anova). The agreement between the methods was also assessed. RESULTS: The SE of the subjects ranged from -5.37 to -0.62 D (mean ± SD, = -2.89 ± 1.01 D). The Mean SE was in exact agreement with the Vector SE. There were no significant differences between the RV readings and those calculated using non-vectorial or vectorial methods for any of the refractive powers (SE, p = 0.99; Sph, p = 0.93; Cyl, p = 0.24). The (mean ± SD) differences were: RV SE vs Mean SE (and also RV SE vs Vector SE) -0.01 ± 0.06 D; RV Sph vs Mean Sph, -0.01 ± 0.05 D; RV Sph vs Vector Sph, -0.04 ± 0.06 D; RV Cyl vs Mean Cyl, 0.01 ± 0.07 D; RV Cyl vs Vector Cyl, 0.06 ± 0.09 D. Ninety-eight percent of RV reading differed from their non-vectorial or vectorial counterparts by less than 0.25 D. CONCLUSION: The RV values showed good agreement to the results calculated using conventional methods. Although the formula used to calculate RV by the NVision-K 5001 autorefractor is proprietary, our results provide validation for the use of RV measurements in clinical practice and vision science research.
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the level of agreement between the 'Representative Value' (RV) of refraction obtained from the Shin-Nippon NVision-K 5001 instrument with values calculated from individual measurement readings using standard algebraic methods. METHODS: Cycloplegic autorefraction readings for 101 myopic children aged 8-13 years (10.9 ± 1.42 years) were obtained using the Shin-Nippon NVision-K 5001. Ten autorefractor measurements were taken for each eye. The spherical equivalent (SE), sphere (Sph) and cylindrical component (Cyl) power of each eye were calculated, firstly, by averaging the 10 repeated measurements (Mean SE, Mean Sph and Mean Cyl), and secondly, by the vector representation method (Vector SE, Vector Sph and Vector Cyl). These calculated values were then compared with those of RV (RV SE, RV Sph and RV Cyl) provided by the proprietary software of the NVision-K 5001 using one-way analysis of variance (anova). The agreement between the methods was also assessed. RESULTS: The SE of the subjects ranged from -5.37 to -0.62 D (mean ± SD, = -2.89 ± 1.01 D). The Mean SE was in exact agreement with the Vector SE. There were no significant differences between the RV readings and those calculated using non-vectorial or vectorial methods for any of the refractive powers (SE, p = 0.99; Sph, p = 0.93; Cyl, p = 0.24). The (mean ± SD) differences were: RV SE vs Mean SE (and also RV SE vs Vector SE) -0.01 ± 0.06 D; RV Sph vs Mean Sph, -0.01 ± 0.05 D; RV Sph vs Vector Sph, -0.04 ± 0.06 D; RV Cyl vs Mean Cyl, 0.01 ± 0.07 D; RV Cyl vs Vector Cyl, 0.06 ± 0.09 D. Ninety-eight percent of RV reading differed from their non-vectorial or vectorial counterparts by less than 0.25 D. CONCLUSION: The RV values showed good agreement to the results calculated using conventional methods. Although the formula used to calculate RV by the NVision-K 5001 autorefractor is proprietary, our results provide validation for the use of RV measurements in clinical practice and vision science research.
Authors: Francisco Segura; Ana Sanchez-Cano; Carmen Lopez de la Fuente; Lorena Fuentes-Broto; Isabel Pinilla Journal: Int J Ophthalmol Date: 2015-10-18 Impact factor: 1.779
Authors: Sara McCullough; Gary Adamson; Karen M M Breslin; Julie F McClelland; Lesley Doyle; Kathryn J Saunders Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-09-16 Impact factor: 4.379