Comparison of Two Wavefront Autorefractors: Binocular Open-Field versus Monocular Closed-Field
| Autor: | Gonzalo Carracedo, Carlos Carpena-Torres, Laura Batres, Maria Serramito, Anahi Gonzalez-Bergaz |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2020 |
| Předmět: |
genetic structures
Article Subject Spherical equivalent 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Age groups 0502 economics and business Optometría Medicine Wavefront Monocular business.industry 05 social sciences Autorefractors Repeatability RE1-994 eye diseases Clinical Practice Óptica geométrica e instrumental Ophthalmology Autorefractor 030221 ophthalmology & optometry Optometry 050211 marketing sense organs business Research Article |
| Zdroj: | E-Prints Complutense. Archivo Institucional de la UCM instname Journal of Ophthalmology E-Prints Complutense: Archivo Institucional de la UCM Universidad Complutense de Madrid Journal of Ophthalmology, Vol 2020 (2020) |
| Popis: | Purpose. To evaluate the agreement and repeatability between a new commercially available binocular open-field wavefront autorefractor, as part of the Eye Refract system, and a monocular closed-field wavefront autorefractor (VX110). Methods. A cross-sectional, randomized, and single-masked study was performed. Ninety-nine eyes of 99 healthy participants (37.22 ± 18.04 years, range 8 to 69 years) were randomly analyzed. Three measurements with the Eye Refract and the VX110 were taken on three different days, under noncycloplegic conditions. Mean spherical equivalent (MSE), cylindrical vectors (J0 and J45), and binocular corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA) were compared between both autorefractors. An intersession repeatability analysis was done considering the values of repeatability (Sr) and its 95% limit (r). Results. The VX110 showed more negative values (P<0.001) in terms of MSE in comparison with the Eye Refract (0.20 D). Regarding cylindrical vectors, J45 showed statistically significant differences (P=0.001) between both wavefront autorefractors, but they were not clinically relevant (P=0.667) between both wavefront autorefractors. Additionally, the Eye Refract was more repeatable than the VX110 in terms of both MSE (SrEYE REFRACT = 0.21 D, SrVX110 = 0.53 D) and J0 (SrEYE REFRACT = 0.12 D, SrVX110 = 0.35 D). Conclusions. The Eye Refract provided enough accuracy and reliability to estimate refractive errors in different age groups, achieving better results than the VX110. Therefore, the Eye Refract proved to be a useful autorefractor to be incorporated into clinical practice. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|