Accuracy of autorefraction in an adult Indian population

Kumar, Rajesh S.; Moe, Caitlin A.; Kumar, Deepak; Rackenchath, Mahalakshmi V.; A, Sathi Devi; Nagaraj, Sriharsha; Wittberg, Dionna M; Stamper, Robert L.; Keenan, Jeremy D.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0251583

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most of the currently available auto refractometers are not only expensive but also not suitable for field use as they are not portable. The spherical equivalent and cylindrical values of wavefront-aberrometry-based handheld, portable auto refractometers are validated against other techniques in previous studies [ 6 – 9 , 12 , 13 ]. Padhy et al compared different auto refractometers (rotary prism-based closed field, photorefraction-based spot screener and wavefront-based device) against standard retinoscopy and reported it comparable and among them, wavefront performed better in all the measured parameters [ 14 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Validation of a simple-to-use, affordable, portable, wavefront aberrometry-based auto refractometer in the adult population: A prospective study

Rao¹,

Negiloni

Gurunathan

et al. 2022

BMC Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Refraction is one of the key components of a comprehensive eye examination. Auto refractometers that are reliable and affordable can be beneficial, especially in a low-resource community setting. The study aimed to validate the accuracy of a novel wave-front aberrometry-based auto refractometer, Instaref R20 against the open-field system and subjective refraction in an adult population. Methods All the participants underwent a comprehensive eye examination including objective refraction, subjective acceptance, anterior and posterior segment evaluation. Refraction was performed without cycloplegia using WAM5500 open-field auto refractometer (OFAR) and Instaref R20, the study device. Agreement between both methods was evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis. The repeatability of the device based on three measurements in a subgroup of 40 adults was assessed. Results The refractive error was measured in 132 participants (mean age,30.53 ± 9.36 years, 58.3% female). The paired mean difference of the refraction values of the study device against OFAR was − 0.13D for M, − 0.0002D (J0) and − 0.13D (J45) and against subjective refraction (SR) was − 0.09D (M), 0.06 (J0) and 0.03D (J45). The device agreed within +/− 0.50D of OFAR in 78% of eyes for M, 79% for J0 and 78% for J45. The device agreed within +/− 0.5D of SR values for M (84%), J0 (86%) and J45 (89%). Conclusion This study found a good agreement between the measurements obtained with the portable autorefractor against open-field refractometer and SR values. It has a potential application in population-based community vision screening programs for refractive error correction without the need for highly trained personnel.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Validation of a simple-to-use, affordable, portable, wavefront aberrometry-based auto refractometer in the adult population: A prospective study

Rao¹,

Negiloni

Gurunathan

et al. 2022

BMC Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All participating practices here used an autorefractor to measure the objective prescription and most practitioners are likely to have used this result rather than performing retinoscopy. Modern autorefractors show good agreement with subjective results, 28 particularly in astigmatism measurement, and perhaps practitioners accepted the autorefractor result as an “accurate” finding. If so, this might lead to over‐correcting if the practitioner does not consider partial prescribing to aid patient adaptation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

What are the causes of non‐tolerance to new spectacles and how can they be avoided?

Beesley

Davey

Elliott

2022

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To investigate non-tolerance cases from several UK practices to determine their likely causes and how they might have been avoided. Methods:Patient complaint and refraction data were collected from nontolerance recheck examinations. For one practice, clinical data were also collected retrospectively to investigate the quality of the eye examinations.Results: Data for 279 rechecks were gathered from 10 practices and a recheck frequency of 2.3% was found. The mean patient age was 60 (SD 16) years, with cylinder changes responsible for 38% of prescription-related causes of rechecks, overplusing or underminusing 26%, and underplusing or overminusing just 11%.An assessment of 242 recheck corrections found that 40% were unsatisfactory (e.g., failed to address initial or recheck symptoms, N = 45) and retrospective analysis of 217 case records showed many limitations (e.g., 61% or 28% recorded no uncorrected or habitual visual acuity (VA) at either initial examination or recheck).Conclusions: Given that overplus-underminus was a much bigger proportion of prescription-related cases than overminus-underplus (26% vs. 11%), the refrac-

show abstract

“…Without model eyes with a precisely defined value of defocus, a statement about the quality of a system for objective measurements of refraction can only be made by comparing measurement results to those of other devices or to subjective refraction. Variations can be observed when investigating inter-device agreement between different devices or methods of refraction, especially in regard to the limits of agreement between different devices of the same technology or when comparing devices of different technology [ 31 , 32 , 33 ]. Therefore, the results presented in this study need to be complemented by further investigations about the performance in the field to be able to make a comprehensive statement about the real life quality of PSFRx refraction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and Testing of a Compact Autorefractor Based on Double-Pass Imaging

Emmerich

Ohlendorf

Leube

et al. 2022

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Autorefraction is an objective way to determine the refractive error of the eye, without the need for feedback by the patient or a well-educated practitioner. To make refractive measurements more accessible in the background of the growing prevalence of myopia, a compact autorefractor was built, containing only few optical components and relying on double-pass imaging and the physical properties of the point-spread function and digital image processing instead. A method was developed to analyze spherical defocus as well as the defocus and angle of astigmatism. The device was tested using calibrator eye models in a range of ± 15 D spherical defocus and −3 D astigmatic defocus. Reliable results could be achieved across the whole measurement range, with only a small increase in deviation toward high values of refractive errors, showing the feasibility of a PSF-based approach for a compact and low-cost solution for objective measurements of refractive error.

show abstract

Accuracy of autorefraction in an adult Indian population

Cited by 6 publications

References 31 publications

Validation of a simple-to-use, affordable, portable, wavefront aberrometry-based auto refractometer in the adult population: A prospective study

Validation of a simple-to-use, affordable, portable, wavefront aberrometry-based auto refractometer in the adult population: A prospective study

What are the causes of non‐tolerance to new spectacles and how can they be avoided?

Development and Testing of a Compact Autorefractor Based on Double-Pass Imaging

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About