Aberrometry Repeatability and Agreement with Autorefraction

Nguyen, Mylan T.; Berntsen, David A.

doi:10.1097/opx.0000000000001107

Cited by 15 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 46 publications

(43 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However for the cycloplegic group, there was a reduction in the agreement between the astigmatic components (J 0 and J 45 ) measured by QuickSee, those measured by the KR 8800, and SR (Table 4 and Fig 1). These average differences, although noticeable (0.08 D and 0.01 D for J 0 and J 45 , respectively), were smaller than those reported by other authors comparing autorefractors and wavefront aberrometers in young adults under cycloplegic conditions [22,23].…”

Section: Plos Onecontrasting

confidence: 65%

Assesment of the QuickSee wavefront autorefractor for characterizing refractive errors in school-age children

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To assess the performance of an open-view binocular handheld aberrometer (QuickSee) for diagnosing refractive errors in children. Methods 123 school-age children (9.9 ± 3.3 years) with moderate refractive error underwent autorefraction (AR) with a standard desktop device and subjective refraction (SR), with or without cycloplegia to determine their eyeglass prescription. Measurements with QuickSee (QS) were taken in 62 of these patients without cycloplegia (NC), and in 61 under cycloplegia (C). Differences in refraction values (AR vs SR vs QS) as well as the visual acuity (VA) achieved by the patients with each method (QS vs SR) were used to evaluate the performance of the device in measuring refractive error. Results The spherical equivalent refraction obtained by QS agreed within 0.5 D of the SR in 71% (NC) and 70% (C) of the cases. Agreement between the desktop autorefractor and SR for the same threshold was of 61% (NC) and 77% (C). VA resulting from QS refractions was equal to or better than that achieved by SR procedure in 77% (NC) and 74% (C) of the patients. Average improvement in VA with the QS refractions was of 8.6 and 13.4 optotypes for the NC and C groups respectively, while the SR procedure provided average improvements of 8.9 (NC) and 14.8 (C) optotypes. Conclusions The high level of agreement between QuickSee and subjective refraction together with the VA improvement achieved in both study groups using QuickSee refractions suggest that the device is a useful autorefraction tool for school-age children.

show abstract

Section: Plos Onecontrasting

confidence: 65%

Assesment of the QuickSee wavefront autorefractor for characterizing refractive errors in school-age children

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the quality of the measurement can depend upon a variety of factors, including the availability of the necessary equipment, a suitable environment for testing, the patient’s ability and willingness to cooperate with the examiner, and the examiner’s experience and training. Alternatively, refraction can be measured by using an automated approach, for example, with an automated refractor [11,12], an aberrometer [13], or adaptive optics [14]. Nevertheless, both the subjective and automated techniques require expensive medical equipment and qualified personnel, which can limit their availability and accessibility.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of an Independent Web-Based Tool for Measuring Visual Acuity and Refractive Error (the Manifest versus Online Refractive Evaluation Trial): Prospective Open-Label Noninferiority Clinical Trial.

Wisse

Muijzer

Cassano³

et al. 2019

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDigital tools provide a unique opportunity to increase access to eye care. We developed a Web-based test that measures visual acuity and both spherical and cylindrical refractive errors. This test is Conformité Européenne marked and available on the Easee website. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of this Web-based tool with traditional subjective manifest refraction in a prospective open-label noninferiority clinical trial.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of a Web-based refraction compared with a manifest refraction (golden standard).MethodsHealthy volunteers from 18 to 40 years of age, with a refraction error between –6 and +4 diopter (D), were eligible. Each participant performed the Web-based test, and the reference test was performed by an optometrist. An absolute difference in refractive error of <0.5 D was considered noninferior. Reliability was assessed by using an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Both uncorrected and corrected visual acuity were measured.ResultsA total of 200 eyes in 100 healthy volunteers were examined. The Web-based assessment of refractive error had excellent correlation with the reference test (ICC=0.92) and was considered noninferior to the reference test. Uncorrected visual acuity was similar with the Web-based test and the reference test (P=.21). Visual acuity was significantly improved using the prescription obtained by using the Web-based tool (P<.01). The Web-based test provided the best results in participants with mild myopia (ie, <3 D), with a mean difference of 0.02 (SD 0.49) D (P=.48) and yielding a corrected visual acuity of >1.0 in 90% (n=77) of participants.ConclusionsOur results indicate that Web-based eye testing is a valid and safe method for measuring visual acuity and refractive error in healthy eyes, particularly for mild myopia. This tool can be used for screening purposes, and it is an easily accessible alternative to the subjective manifest refraction test.Trial RegistrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT03313921; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03313921.

show abstract

“…The wavefront measurements in this study were obtained using the Discovery System wavefront sensor. A recent study has shown that the Discovery system is repeatable with no bias between visits and can be used to track changes in higher order aberration 30. However, the study has also implied that the Discovery System cannot be used interchangeably with the COAS wavefront sensor, which is considered the gold standard in the field of wavefront measurement 30.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A recent study has shown that the Discovery system is repeatable with no bias between visits and can be used to track changes in higher order aberration 30. However, the study has also implied that the Discovery System cannot be used interchangeably with the COAS wavefront sensor, which is considered the gold standard in the field of wavefront measurement 30. While comparisons between optimized metrics in this study are robust in that all refractions were based upon measurements obtained with the Discovery, comparisons among metric refractions, habitual refraction, and autorefraction may be in question if the Discovery is not in agreement with other instrumentation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Image Quality Metric Derived Refractions Predicted to Improve Visual Acuity Beyond Habitual Refraction for Patients With Down Syndrome

Ravikumar

Benoit

Marsack

et al. 2019

Trans. Vis. Sci. Tech.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To determine which optimized image quality metric (IQM) refractions provide the best predicted visual acuity (VA). Methods Autorefraction (AR), habitual refraction (spectacles, n = 23; unaided, n = 7), and dilated wavefront error (WFE) were obtained from 30 subjects with Down syndrome (DS; mean age, 30 years; range, 18–50). For each eye, the resultant metric value for 16 IQMs was calculated after >25000 sphero-cylindrical combinations of refraction were added to the measured WFE to generate residual WFE. The single refraction corresponding to each of the 16 optimized IQMs per eye was selected and used to generate acuity charts. Charts also were created for AR, habitual refraction, and a theoretical zeroing of all lower-order aberrations, and grouped into 10 sets with a clear chart in each set. Dilated controls (five observers per set) read each chart until five letters were missed on a high contrast monitor through a unit magnification telescope with a 3 mm pupil aperture. Average letters lost for the five observers for each chart was used to rank the IQMs for each DS eye. Results Average acuity for the best performing refraction for all DS eyes was within five letters (0.11 ± 0.05 logMAR) of the clear chart acuity. Optimized IQM refractions had ∼3.5 lines mean improvement from the habitual refraction (0.37 ± 0.22 logMAR, P < 0.001). Three metrics (Visual Strehl Ratio [VSX], VSX computed in frequency domain [VSMTF], and standard deviation of intensity values [STD]) identified refractions that were ranked first, or within 0.09 logMAR of first, in >98% of the eyes. Conclusions Optimized IQM refraction is predicted to improve VA in DS eyes based on control observers reading simulated charts. Translational Relevance Refractions identified through optimization of IQM may bypass some of the challenges of current refraction techniques for patients with DS. The optimized refractions are predicted to provide better VA compared to their habitual correction.

show abstract

Aberrometry Repeatability and Agreement with Autorefraction

Cited by 15 publications

References 46 publications

Assesment of the QuickSee wavefront autorefractor for characterizing refractive errors in school-age children

Assesment of the QuickSee wavefront autorefractor for characterizing refractive errors in school-age children

Validation of an Independent Web-Based Tool for Measuring Visual Acuity and Refractive Error (the Manifest versus Online Refractive Evaluation Trial): Prospective Open-Label Noninferiority Clinical Trial.

Image Quality Metric Derived Refractions Predicted to Improve Visual Acuity Beyond Habitual Refraction for Patients With Down Syndrome

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About