Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry · 2021
Evaluation of a Portable Wavefront Aberrometer for Community Screening Refraction in the Elderly.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Plum William, Varadaraj Varshini, Dosto Niccolo, Thompson Sean L, Gajwani Prateek, Friedman David S
Аннотация
SIGNIFICANCE: The SVOne may prove useful to quickly and easily assess refractive correction needs in community screenings and low-resource settings, but not all subjects were testable with the device.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the SVOne handheld, smartphone-based wavefront aberrometer with a tabletop autorefractor in identifying refractive errors in elderly subjects.
METHODS: Participants 50 years or older at community eye screenings with visual acuity worse than 20/40 in either eye underwent autorefraction followed by two SVOne trials. Power vectors of right eye data were analyzed.
RESULTS: Of 84 subjects who underwent autorefraction, 67 (79.8%) were successfully autorefracted with the SVOne, of whom 82.1% (55/67) had a successful repeat reading. Mean M (spherical equivalent) values from tabletop and handheld autorefraction were -0.21 D (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.71 to +0.29 D) and -0.29 D (95% CI, -0.79 to +0.21 D), respectively (P > .05). Mean astigmatism values from tabletop and handheld devices were +1.06 D (95% CI, 0.87 to 1.26 D) and +1.21 D (95% CI, 0.99 to 1.43 D), respectively (P > .05). Intraclass correlation coefficients between devices were 0.95 (95% CI, 0.93 to 0.97) for M, 0.78 (95% CI, 0.66 to 0.86) for J0, and 0.45 (95% CI, 0.24 to 0.63) for J45 (P < .05 for all). Excellent test-retest correlation between SVOne measurements was noted for M (Pearson correlation [r] = 0.96; P < .05), but a weaker correlation was noted for J0 and J45 (r = 0.67 and r = 0.63 [P < .05 for both], respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: The SVOne provided strong agreement for M, with the majority of readings within ±1.00 D of each other, when compared with the tabletop autorefractor. A weaker but still good correlation was noted for astigmatism. Similar findings were noted when assessing repeatability.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the SVOne handheld, smartphone-based wavefront aberrometer with a tabletop autorefractor in identifying refractive errors in elderly subjects.
METHODS: Participants 50 years or older at community eye screenings with visual acuity worse than 20/40 in either eye underwent autorefraction followed by two SVOne trials. Power vectors of right eye data were analyzed.
RESULTS: Of 84 subjects who underwent autorefraction, 67 (79.8%) were successfully autorefracted with the SVOne, of whom 82.1% (55/67) had a successful repeat reading. Mean M (spherical equivalent) values from tabletop and handheld autorefraction were -0.21 D (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.71 to +0.29 D) and -0.29 D (95% CI, -0.79 to +0.21 D), respectively (P > .05). Mean astigmatism values from tabletop and handheld devices were +1.06 D (95% CI, 0.87 to 1.26 D) and +1.21 D (95% CI, 0.99 to 1.43 D), respectively (P > .05). Intraclass correlation coefficients between devices were 0.95 (95% CI, 0.93 to 0.97) for M, 0.78 (95% CI, 0.66 to 0.86) for J0, and 0.45 (95% CI, 0.24 to 0.63) for J45 (P < .05 for all). Excellent test-retest correlation between SVOne measurements was noted for M (Pearson correlation [r] = 0.96; P < .05), but a weaker correlation was noted for J0 and J45 (r = 0.67 and r = 0.63 [P < .05 for both], respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: The SVOne provided strong agreement for M, with the majority of readings within ±1.00 D of each other, when compared with the tabletop autorefractor. A weaker but still good correlation was noted for astigmatism. Similar findings were noted when assessing repeatability.