Spherical subjective refraction with a novel 3D virtual reality based system

Pujol, Jaume; Parra, Juan Carlos Ondategui; Badiella, Llorenç; Otero, Carles; Vilaseca, Meritxell; Aldaba, Mikel

doi:10.1016/j.optom.2015.12.005

Cited by 20 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“… 14 , 24 – 29 Analogously, the reproducibility of subjective refraction has been shown between ±0.39 D and ±0.55 D for the spherical equivalent. 19 , 25 , 27 , 30 – 32 Rosenfield and Chiu 26 suggested a limit of 0.50 D as a minimum significant shift in refractive status, which is reasonable considering the results from all the previous studies of precision in subjective refraction.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 67%

A Comparison Between Refraction From an Adaptive Optics Visual Simulator and Clinical Refractions

Tabernero

Otero

Pardhan

2020

Trans. Vis. Sci. Tech.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The Visual Adaptive Optics (VAO) is an adaptive optics visual simulator with an embedded Hartmann–Shack aberrometer that can give objective and subjective refraction measures. The aim of the present study was to compare the findings of the objective and subjective refractions from the VAO with a commercial autorefractometer (Topcon Corp., Tokyo, Japan) and a subjective refraction by an optometrist. The influence of age, refractive error type, and presence of ocular diseases was ascertained. Methods The refractive error was obtained in 469 participants using the four techniques mentioned. Data were analyzed with power vectors mean spherical equivalent, the vertical Jackson-Cross-Cylinder, and the oblique Jackson-Cross-Cylinder. Age, refractive error type (myopia, emmetropia, hyperopia) and presence of ocular diseases (yes, no) were included as covariates. Agreement was assessed using the 95% interval of agreement. Results The median spherical equivalent difference and the interval of agreement for all the participants with the VAO subjective, VAO objective, and autorefraction with the clinical subjective refraction were (+0.13, 1.80 diopters [D]), (+0.38, 1.80 D), and (−0.38, 2.10 D), respectively. When considering only healthy participants, the results were (+0.06, 1.70 D), (+0.38, 1.60 D) and (−0.25, 1.80 D), respectively. When considering only those participants with any ocular condition, the results with VAO subjective, VAO objective and autorefraction were (+0.13, 2.50 D), (+0.31, 2.70 D), and (−0.50, 4.80 D), respectively. Conclusions The VAO subjective refraction is more accurate than VAO objective refraction and autorefraction, regardless of refractive error, age, or the presence of ocular conditions. The presence of ocular conditions significantly deteriorates the accuracy of all refraction methods. Translational Relevance Reported clinical comparisons between different types of standard refraction methods and a new adaptive optics refraction instrument (VAO) are in good agreement and support the further development of this method to increase refraction accuracy and to refract quicker than standard procedures.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 67%

A Comparison Between Refraction From an Adaptive Optics Visual Simulator and Clinical Refractions

Tabernero

Otero

Pardhan

2020

Trans. Vis. Sci. Tech.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, this could not be considered clinically relevant because the differences in VAS scores were approximately 3% to 4%. In addition, Pujol et al, 22 who designed an instrument to perform objective and subjective refraction, did not report visual acuity results. No studies evaluating visual satisfaction with refractors in a quantitative manner were found in the scientific literature.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To evaluate the objective and subjective refraction in the same device, Pujol et al 22 designed a new system that included an open-field wavefront-based refractor. Subjective refraction was performed based on LOA in a virtual reality environment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison Between Aberrometry-Based Binocular Refraction and Subjective Refraction

Carracedo

Carpena-Torres

Serramito

et al. 2018

Trans. Vis. Sci. Tech.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeWe evaluate the efficacy of a new system of binocular refraction, mainly based on ocular aberrometry (EYER) and compare it with the traditional subjective refraction as gold standard.MethodsA prospective, double blind, and transversal study was performed on 99 subjects (35 men, 64 women; mean age 37.22 ± 18.04 years; range, 7–70 years). Refractive surgery or irregular cornea were considered exclusion criteria. Subjective refraction was performed by three different optometrists and EYER by other optometrists on three different days randomly. The binocular best corrected visual acuity (BBCVA), subjective vision evaluated with visual analogue scale (VAS), refraction spent time, and mean spherical equivalent (MSE), and vertical and oblique cylindrical components (J0 and J45) were analyzed.ResultsA positive strong correlation between EYER and subjective refraction was found for MSE (Pearson, 0.984; P < 0.001) and J0 and J45 (Pearson, 0.837; P < 0.001 and Pearson, 0.852; P < 0.001, respectively) in the total group. There were no statistically significant differences for BBCVA (P < 0.05). The VAS scores were 84.29 ± 12.29 with the EYER and 86.89 ± 12.38 with subjective refraction (P = 0.031). The spent time to perform the refraction was statistically lower (P < 0.05) with the EYER compared to conventional subjective refraction for all groups.ConclusionsThe EYER system showed similar results in terms of spherical and cylindrical components, visual acuity being the spent time in the refraction lower than conventional subjective refraction.Translational RelevanceThis new objective refraction system provides less chair spent time with similar results than subjective refraction.

show abstract

“…They reported ICC’s regarding the repeatability for the spherical refraction of the autorefractor of 0.999 and 0.998 for the aberrometer. Comparing the intra-observer reliability of the SE obtained with classical trial frame refraction and autorefraction (using the WAM-5500, Grand Seiko Co. Ltd), Pujol [ 23 ] reported ICCs for the SE regarding the intra-observer reliability, when refractive errors were measured in 104 eyes of 52 subjects. In case of trial frame refraction, ICC was 0.993, while it was 0.991 for the used autorefractor (WAM-5500, Grand Seiko Co. Ltd).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Steps towards Smarter Solutions in Optometry and Ophthalmology—Inter-Device Agreement of Subjective Methods to Assess the Refractive Errors of the Eye

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To investigate the inter-device agreement and mean differences between a newly developed digital phoropter and the two standard methods (trial frame and manual phoropter). Methods: Refractive errors of two groups of participants were measured by two examiners (examiner 1 (E1): 36 subjects; examiner 2 (E2): 38 subjects). Refractive errors were assessed using a trial frame, a manual phoropter and a digital phoropter. Inter-device agreement regarding the measurement of refractive errors was analyzed for differences in terms of the power vector components (spherical equivalent (SE) and the cylindrical power vector components J0 and J45) between the used methods. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC’s) were calculated to evaluate correlations between the used methods. Results: Analyzing the variances between the three methods for SE, J0 and J45 using a two-way ANOVA showed no significant differences between the methods (SE: p = 0.13, J0: p = 0.58 and J45: p = 0.96) for examiner 1 and for examiner 2 (SE: p = 0.88, J0: p = 0.95 and J45: p = 1). Mean differences and ±95% Limits of Agreement for each pair of inter-device agreement regarding the SE for both examiners were as follows: Trial frame vs. digital phoropter: +0.10 D ± 0.56 D (E1) and +0.19 D ± 0.60 D (E2), manual phoropter vs. trial frame: −0.04 D ± 0.59 D (E1) and −0.12 D ± 0.49 D (E2) and for manual vs. digital phoropter: +0.06 D ± 0.65 D (E1) and +0.08 D ± 0.45 D (E2). ICCs revealed high correlations between all methods for both examiner (p < 0.001). The time to assess the subjective refraction was significantly smaller with the digital phoropter (examiner 1: p < 0.001; examiner 2: p < 0.001). Conclusion: “All used subjective methods show a good agreement between each other terms of ICC (>0.9). Assessing refractive errors using different subjective methods, results in similar mean differences and 95% limits of agreement, when compared to those reported in studies comparing subjective refraction non-cylcoplegic retinoscopy or autorefraction”.

show abstract

Spherical subjective refraction with a novel 3D virtual reality based system

Cited by 20 publications

References 25 publications

A Comparison Between Refraction From an Adaptive Optics Visual Simulator and Clinical Refractions

A Comparison Between Refraction From an Adaptive Optics Visual Simulator and Clinical Refractions

Comparison Between Aberrometry-Based Binocular Refraction and Subjective Refraction

Steps towards Smarter Solutions in Optometry and Ophthalmology—Inter-Device Agreement of Subjective Methods to Assess the Refractive Errors of the Eye

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About