A Comparison of Autorefraction and Subjective Refraction in an Academic Optometry Clinic

被引:3
|
作者
Kemchoknatee, Parinee [1 ]
Sunlakaviset, Pornlada [1 ]
Khieokhoen, Nattawat [1 ]
Srisombut, Thansit [1 ]
Tangon, Duanghathai [1 ]
机构
[1] Rangsit Univ, Rajavithi Hosp, Ophthalmol, Bangkok, Thailand
关键词
spherical equivalent; cylindrical power; spherical power; refraction; subjective refraction; autorefraction; autorefractor; REPEATABILITY; ERRORS; YOUNG;
D O I
10.7759/cureus.37448
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: Refractive error is the most common cause of decreased visual acuity. Refractive measurement in adults consists of cycloplegic (objective) and manifest (subjective) refraction. Although the effectiveness of autorefraction is a crucial factor, there needs to be more information on its accuracy and precision on each autorefractor compared with subjective measurement in Thai patients.Objective: To compare the accuracy and precision of the two autorefractors' findings in Rajavithi Hospital, OptoChek Plus, and TOMEY Auto Refractometer RC-5000, with each other and with those of the subjective method.Materials & Methods: An observational study was conducted at the Ophthalmology clinic in Rajavithi Hospital from March 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022. All subjects were tested using the two autorefractors (OptoChek Plus and TOMEY Auto Refractometer RC-5000) and subjective refraction. One eye per subject was included in the study.Results: Forty-eight patients (48 eyes) were enrolled in the study. The difference between spherical powers obtained by OptoChek and subjective refraction was not significantly different; however, there was a significant difference between those calculated by Tomey and the subjective method (p=0.77, p=0.04 respectively). The variations between cylindrical powers arrived at by the two autorefraction techniques and those calculated by the subjective method were significantly different (OptoChek and Tomey p-=0.01, p-value<0.001, respectively). In addition, 95% of the limit of agreement (95% of LOA) was low in the cylindrical measurement of each autorefractor compared with subjective refraction. (84.61%, 86.36%, respectively). No statistically significant difference between the spherical equivalent calculated by the two autorefractors and that of subjective refraction was observed in the present study (OptoChek: p-value=0.26 and Tomey: p-value=0.77).Conclusions: There was a clinically significant difference between the cylindrical power calculated by the two autorefractors and those obtained from subjective refraction. Patients with high astigmatism should be monitored closely when measured by autorefractors, as there can be a slightly lower agreement between objective and subjective refraction.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Comparisons of objective and subjective refraction with and without cycloplegia using binocular wavefront optometer with autorefraction and retinoscopy in school-age children
    Lei, Yadi
    Chen, Xun
    Cheng, Mingrui
    Li, Boliang
    Jiang, Yinjie
    Xu, Yilin
    Wang, Xiaoying
    GRAEFES ARCHIVE FOR CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2023, 261 (05) : 1465 - 1472
  • [32] Clinical evaluation of autorefraction and subjective refraction with and without cycloplegia in Chinese school-aged children: a cross-sectional study
    Guo, Rui
    Shi, Li
    Xu, Ke
    Hong, Dejian
    TRANSLATIONAL PEDIATRICS, 2022, 11 (06) : 933 - 946
  • [33] Comparison of Refractive Error Measures by the IRX3 Aberrometer and Autorefraction
    McCullough, Sara Jayne
    Little, Julie-Anne
    Breslin, Karen Mary
    Saunders, Kathryn Jill
    OPTOMETRY AND VISION SCIENCE, 2014, 91 (10) : 1183 - 1190
  • [34] Comparison of objective refraction in darkness to cycloplegic refraction: a pilot study
    Vasudevan, Balamurali
    Ciuffreda, Kenneth J.
    Meehan, Kelly
    Grk, Dejana
    Cox, Misty
    CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL OPTOMETRY, 2016, 99 (02) : 168 - 172
  • [35] Evaluation of the Performance of Algorithm-Based Methods for Subjective Refraction
    Venkataraman, Abinaya Priya
    Sirak, Delila
    Brautaset, Rune
    Dominguez-Vicent, Alberto
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2020, 9 (10) : 1 - 8
  • [36] Repeatability and Reproducibility of Virtual Subjective Refraction
    Perches, Sara
    Collados, M. Victoria
    Ares, Jorge
    OPTOMETRY AND VISION SCIENCE, 2016, 93 (10) : 1243 - 1253
  • [37] The Reliability and Acceptability of RDx-Based Tele- Controlled Subjective Refraction Compared with Traditional Subjective Refraction
    Huang, Jie
    Li, Xiaoning
    Yan, Tao
    Wen, Longbo
    Pan, Lun
    Yang, Zhikuan
    TRANSLATIONAL VISION SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2022, 11 (01):
  • [38] Auto-refraction versus subjective refraction in different phakic and pseudophakic conditions: the Tehran Geriatric Eye Study (TGES)
    Hashemi, Hassan
    Asharlous, Amir
    Jamali, Alireza
    Mortazavi, Abolghasem
    Hashemi, Alireza
    Khabazkhoob, Mehdi
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2023, 16 (08) : 1309 - 1316
  • [39] Accuracy and precision of automated subjective refraction in young hyperopes under cycloplegia
    Carracedo, Gonzalo
    Pastrana, Cristina
    Rodriguez-Lafora, Maria
    Serramito, Maria
    Privado-Aroco, Ana
    Espinosa-Vidal, Teresa Maria
    Carpena-Torresa, Carlos
    JOURNAL OF OPTOMETRY, 2023, 16 (04) : 252 - 260
  • [40] Comparison of a Novel Cell Phone-Based Refraction Technique (Netra-G) with Subjective Refraction
    Gaiser, Hilary
    Moore, Bruce
    Pamplona, Vitor
    Solaka, Nadine
    Schafran, David
    Merrill, Dennis
    Sharpe, Nathaniel
    Geringer, Joe
    Raskar, Ramesh
    INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 2013, 54 (15)