Evaluation of the Performance of Algorithm-Based Methods for Subjective Refraction

被引:6
作者
Venkataraman, Abinaya Priya [1 ]
Sirak, Delila [1 ]
Brautaset, Rune [1 ]
Dominguez-Vicent, Alberto [1 ]
机构
[1] Karolinska Inst, Dept Clin Neurosci, Sect Eye & Vis, S-17177 Stockholm, Sweden
关键词
subjective refraction; algorithm; agreement; CLINICAL-EVALUATION; AUTOREFRACTION; ACCURACY; REPEATABILITY; AGREEMENT;
D O I
10.3390/jcm9103144
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objective: To evaluate the performance of two subjective refraction measurement algorithms by comparing the refraction values, visual acuity, and the time taken by the algorithms with the standard subjective refraction (SSR). Methods: The SSR and two semi-automated algorithm-based subjective refraction (SR1 and SR2) in-built in the Vision-R 800 phoropter were performed in 68 subjects. In SR1 and SR2, the subject's responses were recorded in the algorithm which continuously modified the spherical and cylindrical component accordingly. The main difference between SR1 and SR2 is the use of an initial fogging step in SR1. Results: The average difference and agreement limits intervals in the spherical equivalent between each refraction method were smaller than 0.25 D, and 2.00 D, respectively. For the cylindrical components, the average difference was almost zero and the agreement limits interval was less than 0.50 D. The visual acuities were not significantly different among the methods. The times taken for SR1 and SR2 were significantly shorter, and SR2 was on average was three times faster than SSR. Conclusions: The refraction values and the visual acuity obtained with the standard subjective refraction and algorithm-based methods were similar on average. The algorithm-based methods were significantly faster than the standard method.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 8
页数:8
相关论文
共 24 条
  • [1] Benjamin W.J., 2006, BORISHS CLIN REFRACT, VSecond
  • [2] Measuring agreement in method comparison studies
    Bland, JM
    Altman, DG
    [J]. STATISTICAL METHODS IN MEDICAL RESEARCH, 1999, 8 (02) : 135 - 160
  • [3] Clinical Applications of Wavefront Refraction
    Bruce, Adrian S.
    Catania, Louis J.
    [J]. OPTOMETRY AND VISION SCIENCE, 2014, 91 (10) : 1278 - 1286
  • [4] The repeatability of automated and clinician refraction
    Bullimore, MA
    Fusaro, RE
    Adams, CW
    [J]. OPTOMETRY AND VISION SCIENCE, 1998, 75 (08) : 617 - 622
  • [5] Comparison Between Aberrometry-Based Binocular Refraction and Subjective Refraction
    Carracedo, Gonzalo
    Carpena-Torres, Carlos
    Serramito, Maria
    Batres-Valderas, Laura
    Gonzalez-Bergaz, Anahi
    [J]. TRANSLATIONAL VISION SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2018, 7 (04):
  • [6] Wavefront analyzers induce instrument myopia
    Cervino, Alejandro
    Hosking, Sarah L.
    Rai, Gurjeet K.
    Naroo, Shezhad A.
    Gilmartin, Bernard
    [J]. JOURNAL OF REFRACTIVE SURGERY, 2006, 22 (08) : 795 - 803
  • [7] Image metrics for predicting subjective image quality
    Chen, L
    Singer, B
    Guirao, A
    Porter, J
    Williams, DR
    [J]. OPTOMETRY AND VISION SCIENCE, 2005, 82 (05) : 358 - 369
  • [8] Diagnostic accuracy and variability of autorefraction by the Tracey Visual Function Analyzer and the Shin-Nippon NVision-K 5001 in relation to subjective refraction
    Cleary, G.
    Spalton, D. J.
    Patel, P. M.
    Lin, P. -F.
    Marshall, J.
    [J]. OPHTHALMIC AND PHYSIOLOGICAL OPTICS, 2009, 29 (02) : 173 - 181
  • [9] Clinical evaluation of the Shin-Nippon NVision-K 5001/Grand Seiko WR-5100K autorefractor
    Davies, LN
    Mallen, EAH
    Wolffsohn, JS
    Gilmartin, B
    [J]. OPTOMETRY AND VISION SCIENCE, 2003, 80 (04) : 320 - 324
  • [10] What is the appropriate gold standard test for refractive error?
    Elliott, David B.
    [J]. OPHTHALMIC AND PHYSIOLOGICAL OPTICS, 2017, 37 (02) : 115 - 117