Kelly E Moore1, David A Berntsen. 1. *BS †OD, PhD, FAAO University of Houston, College of Optometry, Houston, Texas (both authors).
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the between-visit repeatability of peripheral autorefraction measurements using the Grand Seiko WAM-5500 in normal eyes. METHODS: Cycloplegic autorefraction of the right eye was measured on 25 myopic young adults using a modified Grand Seiko autorefractor. Measurements were made centrally (along the line of sight) and ±20, ±30, and ±40 degrees from the line of sight in the horizontal meridian at two visits separated by 1 to 15 days. Five autorefraction measurements at each location were converted to vector space and averaged. Relative peripheral refraction (RPR) was calculated as the difference between the peripheral and central spherical equivalent. Between-visit repeatability was evaluated by plotting the difference versus the mean of the measurements at the two visits (bias) and by calculating the 95% limits of agreement (LoA). RESULTS: The mean (±SD) age and spherical-equivalent refractive error centrally (at visit 1) were 24.0 ± 1.3 years and -3.45 ± 1.42 diopters (D), respectively. There was no significant between-visit bias for any refractive component evaluated (M, J0, J45, and RPR) at any location measured (all p > 0.05). The 95% LoA of defocus (M) was ±0.21 D centrally and increased with increasing eccentricity to ±0.73 and ±0.88 D at 40 degrees nasally and temporally on the retina, respectively. The 95% LoA of RPR increased with increasing eccentricity to ±0.67 and ±0.82 D at 40 degrees nasally and temporally on the retina, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In normal eyes, the repeatability of cycloplegic autorefraction was best centrally and decreased as eccentricity increased; however, repeatability in the far periphery was still better than previously reported between-visit repeatability for foveal cycloplegic subjective refraction. With clear knowledge of the repeatability of on- and off-axis cycloplegic autorefraction with the Grand Seiko, peripheral measurements can be properly interpreted in longitudinal studies.
PURPOSE: To determine the between-visit repeatability of peripheral autorefraction measurements using the Grand Seiko WAM-5500 in normal eyes. METHODS: Cycloplegic autorefraction of the right eye was measured on 25 myopic young adults using a modified Grand Seiko autorefractor. Measurements were made centrally (along the line of sight) and ±20, ±30, and ±40 degrees from the line of sight in the horizontal meridian at two visits separated by 1 to 15 days. Five autorefraction measurements at each location were converted to vector space and averaged. Relative peripheral refraction (RPR) was calculated as the difference between the peripheral and central spherical equivalent. Between-visit repeatability was evaluated by plotting the difference versus the mean of the measurements at the two visits (bias) and by calculating the 95% limits of agreement (LoA). RESULTS: The mean (±SD) age and spherical-equivalent refractive error centrally (at visit 1) were 24.0 ± 1.3 years and -3.45 ± 1.42 diopters (D), respectively. There was no significant between-visit bias for any refractive component evaluated (M, J0, J45, and RPR) at any location measured (all p > 0.05). The 95% LoA of defocus (M) was ±0.21 D centrally and increased with increasing eccentricity to ±0.73 and ±0.88 D at 40 degrees nasally and temporally on the retina, respectively. The 95% LoA of RPR increased with increasing eccentricity to ±0.67 and ±0.82 D at 40 degrees nasally and temporally on the retina, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In normal eyes, the repeatability of cycloplegic autorefraction was best centrally and decreased as eccentricity increased; however, repeatability in the far periphery was still better than previously reported between-visit repeatability for foveal cycloplegic subjective refraction. With clear knowledge of the repeatability of on- and off-axis cycloplegic autorefraction with the Grand Seiko, peripheral measurements can be properly interpreted in longitudinal studies.
Authors: Earl L Smith; Li-Fang Hung; Juan Huang; Terry L Blasdel; Tammy L Humbird; Kurt H Bockhorst Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2010-03-10 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Jack Phu; Henrietta Wang; Sephora Miao; Lydia Zhou; Sieu K Khuu; Michael Kalloniatis Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 1.973