Literature DB >> 8539026

Repeatability of subjective and objective refraction.

M Rosenfield1, N N Chiu.   

Abstract

Although several studies have examined the repeatability of objective refraction, data concerning the repeatability of subjective refraction under masked conditions, i.e., where the examiner is unaware of the refractive results, are limited. Accordingly, the present study compared the variability of both subjective and objective refractive techniques. Refractive error was measured in 12 subjects on 5 separate occasions. Conventional subjective procedures were used, with the exception that the sphere power scale on the phoropter was covered so that the examiner was unaware of the final result. Objective measurements were obtained using a Canon Autoref R-1 infrared autorefractor. The standard deviation (SD) of the five examinations was calculated for each individual and the mean values for the population sample determined. The mean SD's for the subjective and objective techniques were +/- 0.14 and +/- 0.18 D, indicating 95% confidence limits of +/- 0.27 and +/- 0.35 D, respectively. It is concluded that with either assessment technique, a change in refractive error of at least +/- 0.50 D should be adopted as the minimum significant shift in refractive status.

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 8539026

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Optom Vis Sci        ISSN: 1040-5488            Impact factor:   1.973


  18 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.  [Agreement of subjective and objective refraction measurements following INTRACOR femtosecond laser treatment].

Authors:  A Fitting; A Ehmer; T M Rabsilber; G U Auffarth; M P Holzer
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 1.059

3.  Accuracy of a new photo-refractometer in young and adult patients.

Authors:  Thilo Schimitzek; Wolf A Lagrèze
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2005-01-14       Impact factor: 3.117

4.  Comparison of cycloplegic refraction between Grand Seiko autorefractor and Retinomax autorefractor in the Vision in Preschoolers-Hyperopia in Preschoolers (VIP-HIP) Study.

Authors:  Gui-Shuang Ying; Maureen G Maguire; Marjean Taylor Kulp; Elise Ciner; Bruce Moore; Maxwell Pistilli; Rowan Candy
Journal:  J AAPOS       Date:  2017-05-18       Impact factor: 1.220

5.  Reproducibility and accuracy of measurements with a hand held autorefractor in children.

Authors:  E M Harvey; J M Miller; L K Wagner; V Dobson
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 4.638

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

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

7.  Trial frame refraction versus autorefraction among new patients in a low-vision clinic.

Authors:  Dawn K DeCarlo; Gerald McGwin; Karen Searcey; Liyan Gao; Marsha Snow; John Waterbor; Cynthia Owsley
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2013-01-02       Impact factor: 4.799

8.  Intertester agreement in refractive error measurements.

Authors:  Jiayan Huang; Maureen G Maguire; Elise Ciner; Marjean T Kulp; Graham E Quinn; Deborah Orel-Bixler; Lynn A Cyert; Bruce Moore; Gui-Shuang Ying
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 1.973

9.  Controlled blood sugar improves the eye's accommodative ability in type-1 diabetes.

Authors:  Samuel Abokyi; Patience Ansomah Ayerakwah; Sampson Listowell Abu; Emmanuel Kwasi Abu
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2020-07-02       Impact factor: 3.775

10.  Baseline peripheral refractive error and changes in axial refraction during one year in a young adult population.

Authors:  Andreas Hartwig; William Neil Charman; Hema Radhakrishnan
Journal:  J Optom       Date:  2015-07-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.