Effect of six different autorefractor designs on the precision and accuracy of refractive error measurement
<h4>Purpose</h4> To evaluate the precision of objective refraction measurements with six different autorefractors that have different designs and measurement principles and to compare the objective refraction values with the subjective refraction. <h4>Method</h4> Objective re...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2022-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9704684/?tool=EBI |
| _version_ | 1797987630425571328 |
|---|---|
| author | Abinaya Priya Venkataraman Rune Brautaset Alberto Domínguez-Vicent |
| author_facet | Abinaya Priya Venkataraman Rune Brautaset Alberto Domínguez-Vicent |
| author_sort | Abinaya Priya Venkataraman |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <h4>Purpose</h4> To evaluate the precision of objective refraction measurements with six different autorefractors that have different designs and measurement principles and to compare the objective refraction values with the subjective refraction. <h4>Method</h4> Objective refraction of 55 participants was measured using six autorefractors with different designs. The instrument features mainly varied in terms of measurement principles, inbuilt fogging, open or closed view, and handheld or stationary designs. Two repeated measurements of objective refraction were performed with each autorefractor. The objective refractions from the six autorefractors were compared with the standard subjective refraction. The repeatability limit and Bland-Altman were used to describe the precision and accuracy of each autorefractor, respectively. The analysis was done using the spherical component of the refraction and the power-vector components, spherical equivalent (M), and cylindrical vectors. <h4>Results</h4> The repeatability of all autorefractors was within 1.00 and 0.35D for measuring the M and both cylindrical components, respectively. Inbuilt fogging was the common feature of the instruments that showed better repeatability. Compared to subjective refraction, the mean difference for sphere and M was below +0.50D, and it was close to zero for the cylindrical components. The instruments that had inbuilt fogging showed narrower limit of agreement. When combined with fogging, the open field refractors showed better precision and accuracy. <h4>Conclusions</h4> The inbuilt fogging is the most important feature followed by the open view in determining the precision and accuracy of the autorefractor values. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-11T07:50:08Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-12c31d39f71a488a9480231db6f5be77 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1932-6203 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-11T07:50:08Z |
| publishDate | 2022-01-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLoS ONE |
| spelling | doaj.art-12c31d39f71a488a9480231db6f5be772022-12-22T04:36:06ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032022-01-011711Effect of six different autorefractor designs on the precision and accuracy of refractive error measurementAbinaya Priya VenkataramanRune BrautasetAlberto Domínguez-Vicent<h4>Purpose</h4> To evaluate the precision of objective refraction measurements with six different autorefractors that have different designs and measurement principles and to compare the objective refraction values with the subjective refraction. <h4>Method</h4> Objective refraction of 55 participants was measured using six autorefractors with different designs. The instrument features mainly varied in terms of measurement principles, inbuilt fogging, open or closed view, and handheld or stationary designs. Two repeated measurements of objective refraction were performed with each autorefractor. The objective refractions from the six autorefractors were compared with the standard subjective refraction. The repeatability limit and Bland-Altman were used to describe the precision and accuracy of each autorefractor, respectively. The analysis was done using the spherical component of the refraction and the power-vector components, spherical equivalent (M), and cylindrical vectors. <h4>Results</h4> The repeatability of all autorefractors was within 1.00 and 0.35D for measuring the M and both cylindrical components, respectively. Inbuilt fogging was the common feature of the instruments that showed better repeatability. Compared to subjective refraction, the mean difference for sphere and M was below +0.50D, and it was close to zero for the cylindrical components. The instruments that had inbuilt fogging showed narrower limit of agreement. When combined with fogging, the open field refractors showed better precision and accuracy. <h4>Conclusions</h4> The inbuilt fogging is the most important feature followed by the open view in determining the precision and accuracy of the autorefractor values.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9704684/?tool=EBI |
| spellingShingle | Abinaya Priya Venkataraman Rune Brautaset Alberto Domínguez-Vicent Effect of six different autorefractor designs on the precision and accuracy of refractive error measurement PLoS ONE |
| title | Effect of six different autorefractor designs on the precision and accuracy of refractive error measurement |
| title_full | Effect of six different autorefractor designs on the precision and accuracy of refractive error measurement |
| title_fullStr | Effect of six different autorefractor designs on the precision and accuracy of refractive error measurement |
| title_full_unstemmed | Effect of six different autorefractor designs on the precision and accuracy of refractive error measurement |
| title_short | Effect of six different autorefractor designs on the precision and accuracy of refractive error measurement |
| title_sort | effect of six different autorefractor designs on the precision and accuracy of refractive error measurement |
| url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9704684/?tool=EBI |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT abinayapriyavenkataraman effectofsixdifferentautorefractordesignsontheprecisionandaccuracyofrefractiveerrormeasurement AT runebrautaset effectofsixdifferentautorefractordesignsontheprecisionandaccuracyofrefractiveerrormeasurement AT albertodominguezvicent effectofsixdifferentautorefractordesignsontheprecisionandaccuracyofrefractiveerrormeasurement |