Kenneth A Lebow1, Charles E Campbell. 1. *OD, FAAO †BS Pennsylvania College of Optometry at Salus University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (KAL); and Berkeley, California (CEC).
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the agreement between the autorefraction function of the Canon RK-F2, an autorefractor/keratometer based on the ray deflection principle, and the Carl Zeiss Vision i.Profiler(Plus), an wavefront aberrometer, compared with each other and with a noncycloplegic subjective refraction. METHODS: Objective refraction results obtained using both instruments were compared with noncycloplegic subjective refractions for 174 eyes of 100 participants. Analysis of sphere, cylinder, and axis using spherical equivalent difference and a new measurement, cross-cylinder difference, was performed. The spherical equivalent refraction and cross-cylinder difference for the manifest refraction were compared using Bland-Altman limits of agreement and 95th percentile analysis. RESULTS: The 100 participants represent 52 women and 48 men with a mean (±SD) age of 51.7 (±13.8) years, an average (±SD) spherical power of -0.67 (±2.53) diopters (D), and an average (±SD) cylinder power of -0.94 (±0.87) D. The spherical equivalent difference is 0.03 D (Canon) and -0.11 D (Zeiss). The 95% limits of agreement for the spherical equivalent are -0.69 to 0.75 D (Canon) and -0.75 to 0.75 D (Zeiss). The mean cross-cylinder power difference is -0.08 D (Canon) and 0.02 D (Zeiss). The 95% limits of agreement for the cross-cylinder power difference are 0.63 to 0.50 D (Canon) and 0.49 to 0.75 D (Zeiss). The mean axis power difference is -0.04 D (Canon) and 0.05 D (Zeiss). The 95% limits of agreement for axis power difference are -0.71 to 0.63 D (Canon) and -0.78 to 0.78 D (Zeiss). The double-angle astigmatic plot center of distribution for the RK-F2 is 0.035 D at 70 degrees, and that for the i.Profiler(Plus) is 0.053 D at 32 degrees. CONCLUSIONS: Both instruments provided clinically useful spherical equivalent refractive data compared with a subjective refraction, whereas the Canon RK-F2 was slightly more accurate in determining the cylinder power compared with a subjective refraction.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the agreement between the autorefraction function of the Canon RK-F2, an autorefractor/keratometer based on the ray deflection principle, and the Carl Zeiss Vision i.Profiler(Plus), an wavefront aberrometer, compared with each other and with a noncycloplegic subjective refraction. METHODS: Objective refraction results obtained using both instruments were compared with noncycloplegic subjective refractions for 174 eyes of 100 participants. Analysis of sphere, cylinder, and axis using spherical equivalent difference and a new measurement, cross-cylinder difference, was performed. The spherical equivalent refraction and cross-cylinder difference for the manifest refraction were compared using Bland-Altman limits of agreement and 95th percentile analysis. RESULTS: The 100 participants represent 52 women and 48 men with a mean (±SD) age of 51.7 (±13.8) years, an average (±SD) spherical power of -0.67 (±2.53) diopters (D), and an average (±SD) cylinder power of -0.94 (±0.87) D. The spherical equivalent difference is 0.03 D (Canon) and -0.11 D (Zeiss). The 95% limits of agreement for the spherical equivalent are -0.69 to 0.75 D (Canon) and -0.75 to 0.75 D (Zeiss). The mean cross-cylinder power difference is -0.08 D (Canon) and 0.02 D (Zeiss). The 95% limits of agreement for the cross-cylinder power difference are 0.63 to 0.50 D (Canon) and 0.49 to 0.75 D (Zeiss). The mean axis power difference is -0.04 D (Canon) and 0.05 D (Zeiss). The 95% limits of agreement for axis power difference are -0.71 to 0.63 D (Canon) and -0.78 to 0.78 D (Zeiss). The double-angle astigmatic plot center of distribution for the RK-F2 is 0.035 D at 70 degrees, and that for the i.Profiler(Plus) is 0.053 D at 32 degrees. CONCLUSIONS: Both instruments provided clinically useful spherical equivalent refractive data compared with a subjective refraction, whereas the Canon RK-F2 was slightly more accurate in determining the cylinder power compared with a subjective refraction.
Authors: V Swetha E Jeganathan; Nita Valikodath; Leslie M Niziol; Sean Hansen; Hannah Apostolou; Maria A Woodward Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 1.973
Authors: Franziska G Rauscher; Heike Lange; Maryam Yahiaoui-Doktor; Helmut Tegetmeyer; Ina Sterker; Andreas Hinz; Siegfried Wahl; Peter Wiedemann; Arne Ohlendorf; Ralf Blendowske Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 1.973
Authors: Andrea Gil; Carlos S Hernández; Ahhyun Stephanie Nam; Varshini Varadaraj; Nicholas J Durr; Daryl Lim; Shivang R Dave; Eduardo Lage Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-03-08 Impact factor: 4.379