Comparison of Two Wavefront Autorefractors: Binocular Open-Field versus Monocular Closed-Field
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...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2020-01-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Ophthalmology |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/8580471 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832547173630214144 |
|---|---|
| author | Gonzalo Carracedo Carlos Carpena-Torres Laura Batres Maria Serramito Anahí Gonzalez-Bergaz |
| author_facet | Gonzalo Carracedo Carlos Carpena-Torres Laura Batres Maria Serramito Anahí Gonzalez-Bergaz |
| author_sort | Gonzalo Carracedo |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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 (<0.05 D). In BCDVA, there were no statistically significant differences (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. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-ba4f63ffb64044fba560033fbcc0b6ec |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2090-004X 2090-0058 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2020-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Ophthalmology |
| spelling | doaj-art-ba4f63ffb64044fba560033fbcc0b6ec2025-02-03T06:45:46ZengWileyJournal of Ophthalmology2090-004X2090-00582020-01-01202010.1155/2020/85804718580471Comparison of Two Wavefront Autorefractors: Binocular Open-Field versus Monocular Closed-FieldGonzalo Carracedo0Carlos Carpena-Torres1Laura Batres2Maria Serramito3Anahí Gonzalez-Bergaz4Department of Optometry and Vision, Faculty of Optics and Optometry, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, SpainDepartment of Optometry and Vision, Faculty of Optics and Optometry, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, SpainDepartment of Optometry and Vision, Faculty of Optics and Optometry, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, SpainDepartment of Optometry and Vision, Faculty of Optics and Optometry, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, SpainDepartment of Optometry and Vision, Faculty of Optics and Optometry, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, SpainPurpose. 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 (<0.05 D). In BCDVA, there were no statistically significant differences (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.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/8580471 |
| spellingShingle | Gonzalo Carracedo Carlos Carpena-Torres Laura Batres Maria Serramito Anahí Gonzalez-Bergaz Comparison of Two Wavefront Autorefractors: Binocular Open-Field versus Monocular Closed-Field Journal of Ophthalmology |
| title | Comparison of Two Wavefront Autorefractors: Binocular Open-Field versus Monocular Closed-Field |
| title_full | Comparison of Two Wavefront Autorefractors: Binocular Open-Field versus Monocular Closed-Field |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of Two Wavefront Autorefractors: Binocular Open-Field versus Monocular Closed-Field |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Two Wavefront Autorefractors: Binocular Open-Field versus Monocular Closed-Field |
| title_short | Comparison of Two Wavefront Autorefractors: Binocular Open-Field versus Monocular Closed-Field |
| title_sort | comparison of two wavefront autorefractors binocular open field versus monocular closed field |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/8580471 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT gonzalocarracedo comparisonoftwowavefrontautorefractorsbinocularopenfieldversusmonocularclosedfield AT carloscarpenatorres comparisonoftwowavefrontautorefractorsbinocularopenfieldversusmonocularclosedfield AT laurabatres comparisonoftwowavefrontautorefractorsbinocularopenfieldversusmonocularclosedfield AT mariaserramito comparisonoftwowavefrontautorefractorsbinocularopenfieldversusmonocularclosedfield AT anahigonzalezbergaz comparisonoftwowavefrontautorefractorsbinocularopenfieldversusmonocularclosedfield |