Literature DB >> 26558222

Evaluation of patient visual comfort and repeatability of refractive values in non-presbyopic healthy eyes.

Francisco Segura1, Ana Sanchez-Cano2, Carmen Lopez de la Fuente2, Lorena Fuentes-Broto3, Isabel Pinilla4.   

Abstract

AIM: To evaluate the intra-operator repeatability in healthy subjects using the WAM-5500 auto-kerato/refractometer and the iTrace aberrometer, to compare the refractive values and the subjective refraction obtained with both devices and to determine which of these three spherocylindrical corrections allows the subject to achieve the best visual comfort.
METHODS: Forty-two non-presbyopic healthy eyes of 42 subjects were enrolled in this prospective study. Refractive values were compared, evaluating the repeatability, the relationship between the methods and the best visual comfort obtained.
RESULTS: Sphere, cylinder and axis results showed good intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC); the highest ICC was obtained using the spherical refraction with the autorefractometer and the aberrometer, achieving levels of 0.999 and 0.998, respectively. The power vector (PV) was calculated for each refraction method, and the results indicated that there were no statistically significant differences between them (P>0.05). Direct comparison of PV measurements using the three methods showed that aberrometer refraction gave the highest values, followed by the subjective values; the autorefractometer gave the lowest values. The subjective method correction was most frequently chosen as the first selection. Equal values were found for the autorefractometer and the aberrometer as the second selection.
CONCLUSION: The iTrace aberrometer and the WAM-5500 auto-kerato/refractometer showed high levels of repeatability in healthy eyes. Refractive corrections with the aberrometer, the autorefractometer and subjective methods presented similar results, but spherocylindrical subjective correction was the most frequently selected option. These technologies can be used as complements in refractive evaluation, but they should not replace subjective refraction.

Entities:  

Keywords:  aberrometer; autorefractometer; optical correction; repeatability; subjective refraction

Year:  2015        PMID: 26558222      PMCID: PMC4630980          DOI: 10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2015.05.32

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol        ISSN: 2222-3959            Impact factor:   1.779


  22 in total

1.  Clinical evaluation of the Shin-Nippon SRW-5000 autorefractor in adults.

Authors:  E A Mallen; J S Wolffsohn; B Gilmartin; S Tsujimura
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 3.117

2.  Comparison of a ray-tracing refractometer, autorefractor, and computerized videokeratography in measuring pseudophakic eyes.

Authors:  Li Wang; Manjula Misra; Ioannis G Pallikaris; Douglas D Koch
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 3.351

3.  Monochromatic aberrations of the human eye in a large population.

Authors:  J Porter; A Guirao; I G Cox; D R Williams
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 2.129

4.  Evaluation of refractive error measurements of the Wavescan Wavefront system and the Tracey Wavefront aberrometer.

Authors:  Li Wang; Nan Wang; Douglas D Koch
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 3.351

5.  A comparison between subjective refraction and aberrometry-derived refraction in keratoconus patients and control subjects.

Authors:  Amit Jinabhai; Clare O'Donnell; Hema Radhakrishnan
Journal:  Curr Eye Res       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 2.424

6.  How representative is the 'Representative Value' of refraction provided by the Shin-Nippon NVision-K 5001 autorefractor?

Authors:  Wing Chun Tang; Ying Yung Tang; Carly S Y Lam
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 3.117

7.  Experimental validation of a Bayesian model of visual acuity.

Authors:  Eugénie Dalimier; Eliseo Pailos; Ricardo Rivera; Rafael Navarro
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2009-07-21       Impact factor: 2.240

8.  Repeat Retinomax screening changes positive predictive value.

Authors:  Eugene A Lowry; Ryan Lui; Wayne Enanoria; Jeremy Keenan; Alejandra G de Alba Campomanes
Journal:  J AAPOS       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 1.220

9.  [Comparison between binocular, open-field auto ref/keratometer and conventional autorefractor].

Authors:  Xiu-hua Wan; Zhong Lin; Xiao-gu Cai; Li-ya Qiao; Xiao-dong Yang; Ning-li Wang; Yuan-bo Liang
Journal:  Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2012-06

10.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

View more
  4 in total

1.  Steps towards Smarter Solutions in Optometry and Ophthalmology-Inter-Device Agreement of Subjective Methods to Assess the Refractive Errors of the Eye.

Authors:  Arne Ohlendorf; Alexander Leube; Siegfried Wahl
Journal:  Healthcare (Basel)       Date:  2016-07-13

2.  Validation of refraction and anterior segment parameters by a new multi-diagnostic platform (VX120).

Authors:  Ariela Gordon-Shaag; David P Piñero; Cyril Kahloun; David Markov; Tzadok Parnes; Liat Gantz; Einat Shneor
Journal:  J Optom       Date:  2018-03-09

3.  Intrasession repeatability of refractive and ocular aberrometric measurements obtained using a multidiagnostic device in healthy eyes.

Authors:  David P Piñero; Alberto López-Navarro; Inmaculada Cabezos; Dolores de Fez; María T Caballero; Vicent J Camps
Journal:  Clin Optom (Auckl)       Date:  2017-05-04

4.  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
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.