Clinical Evaluation Of a 0.05 D-step Binocular Wavefront Optometer in Young Adults in China.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Myopia has become a public health priority as its prevalence increases worldwide, and in clinical practice, the precise evaluation of refraction errors is necessary.

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare objective and subjective refraction measured by a binocular wavefront optometer (BWFOM) in adults with conventional objective and subjective refractions measured by an optometrist.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included 119 eyes of 119 participants (34 men and 85 women; mean age:27.5 ± 6.3 years). Refractive errors were measured using BWFOM and conventional methods, with and without cycloplegia. The mean outcome measures were spherical power, cylindrical power, and spherical equivalence (SE). The agreement test was assessed using a two-tailed paired t-test and Bland - Altman plots.

RESULTS

Under noncycloplegic conditions, there were no significant differences in the objective SE between BWFOM and Nidek. Significant differences in subjective SE were observed between BWFOM and conventional subjective refraction (-5.79 ± 1.86 vs -5.65 ± 1.75 D, P < 0.01). Under cycloplegic conditions, the mean objective SE was significantly different between BWFOM and Nidek (-5.70 ± 1.76 vs -5.50 ± 1.83 D, P < 0.001); the mean subjective SE was significantly different between BWFOM and conventional subjective refractions (-5.52 ± 1.77 vs -5.62 ± 1.79 D, P < 0.001). The Bland - Altman plots revealed mean percentages of 95.38% and 95.17% for the points within the limits of agreement between BWFOM and conventional measurements and those between noncycloplegic and cycloplegic refractions, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The BWFOM is a new device that measures both objective and subjective refraction. It is more convenient and faster to obtain a proper prescription at a 0.05-D interval. The subjective refraction results of the BWFOM and the conventional subjective refraction were in good agreement.