Accuracy of a Smartphone-based Autorefractor Compared with Criterion-standard Refraction

Ametropia detection using a novel, compact wavefront autorefractor

INTRODUCTION

Despite the well-known reproducibility issues of subjective refraction, most studies evaluating autorefractors compared differences between the device and subjective refraction. This work evaluated the performance of a novel handheld Hartmann-Shack-based autorefractor using an alternative protocol, which considered the inherent variability of subjective refraction.

METHODS

Participants underwent an initial measurement with a desktop autorefractor, two subjective refractions (SR1 and SR2) and a final measurement with the QuickSee Free (QSFree) portable autorefractor. Autorefractor performance was evaluated by comparing the differences between the QSFree and each of the subjective refractions with the difference between the subjective refractions (SR1 vs. SR2) using Bland-Altman analysis and percentage of agreement.

RESULTS

A total of 75 subjects (53 ± 14 years) were enrolled in the study. The average difference in the absolute spherical equivalent (M) between the QSFree and the SR1 and SR2 was ±0.24 and ±0.02 D, respectively, that is, very similar or smaller than the SR1 versus SR2 difference (±0.26 D). Average differences in astigmatic components were found to be negligible. The results demonstrate that differences between QSFree and both subjective refractions in J0 and J45 were within ±0.50 D for at least 96% of the measurements. The limits of agreement (LOAs) of the differences between QSFree and SR1, as well as QSFree and SR2, were higher than those observed between SR1 and SR2 for M, J0 and J45 .

CONCLUSIONS

A protocol was designed and validated for the evaluation of a refractive device to account for the variability of subjective refraction. This protocol was used to evaluate a novel portable autorefractor and observed a smaller difference between the device and subjective refractions than the difference between the two subjective refraction measurements in terms of mean bias error, although the standard deviation was higher.

Smartphone Eye Examination: Artificial Intelligence and Telemedicine

Background: The current medical scenario is closely linked to recent progress in telecommunications, photodocumentation, and artificial intelligence (AI). Smartphone eye examination may represent a promising tool in the technological spectrum, with special interest for primary health care services. Obtaining fundus imaging with this technique has improved and democratized the teaching of fundoscopy, but in particular, it contributes greatly to screening diseases with high rates of blindness. Eye examination using smartphones essentially represents a cheap and safe method, thus contributing to public policies on population screening. This review aims to provide an update on the use of this resource and its future prospects, especially as a screening and ophthalmic diagnostic tool. Methods: In this review, we surveyed major published advances in retinal and anterior segment analysis using AI. We performed an electronic search on the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for published literature without a deadline. We included studies that compared the diagnostic accuracy of smartphone ophthalmoscopy for detecting prevalent diseases with an accurate or commonly employed reference standard. Results: There are few databases with complete metadata, providing demographic data, and few databases with sufficient images involving current or new therapies. It should be taken into consideration that these are databases containing images captured using different systems and formats, with information often being excluded without essential detailing of the reasons for exclusion, which further distances them from real-life conditions. The safety, portability, low cost, and reproducibility of smartphone eye images are discussed in several studies, with encouraging results. Conclusions: The high level of agreement between conventional and a smartphone method shows a powerful arsenal for screening and early diagnosis of the main causes of blindness, such as cataract, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, and age-related macular degeneration. In addition to streamlining the medical workflow and bringing benefits for public health policies, smartphone eye examination can make safe and quality assessment available to the population.

Multivariate analysis of repeatability for the Near Eye Tool for Refractive Assessment (NETRA)

OBJECTIVE

To investigate repeatability of refractive state using a smartphone-based assessment tool, the Near Eye Tool for Refractive Assessment (NETRA).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study included 279 participants, predominantly female (66.7%) of African descent (49.1%). The age range was 9-63 years with mean age (s) 22.6 (8.9) years. Two consecutive measurements per eye with the NETRA were measured for both eyes of all participants. However, analyses for the right eyes only are included here. Multivariate statistical analysis included stereo-pair comets and scatterplots with 95% surfaces of constant probability density. Correlation coefficients for repeated samples were determined. Repeatability and agreement for NETRA were assessed with Bland-Altman plots, coefficients of repeatability ([Formula: see text] ; [Formula: see text] is the SD of differences) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs).

RESULTS

Bland-Altman plots, within-subject SD (sw ), coefficients of repeatability and ICC indicated that repeated measurements were similar for many but not all eyes and there was good agreement (ICC=0.96) for the spherical coefficient (F I=M) but less so for antistigmatic coefficients (F J=J 0 and F K=J 45) of power. Although mean differences for repeated samples were almost zero, 95% limits of agreement widths were larger for the stigmatic coefficients. Without cycloplegia, repeatability (2.77sw ) was 1.63 D, 0.58 D and 0.56 D for the stigmatic and antistigmatic coefficients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

NETRA is a potentially useful and inexpensive portable method in clinical and primary health settings, and especially in less-developed regions of the world. The subjective nature of the self-refraction task can be challenging for younger individuals, and cycloplegia is recommended for NETRA with such patients.

A proposed methodology for conducting a remote rigid gas permeable contact lens consultation

PURPOSE

COVID-19 spread to numerous countries, overwhelming healthcare systems and economies worldwide. COVID-19 restrictions have prevented patients from attending consultations in person and led to the further development of telemedicine to provide health care. The situation also applies to contact lens (CL) practitioners and their patients; telemedicine enables practitioners to provide patients with regular and continuing care. This study aimed to investigate available tools to enable continuing care for rigid gas permeable (RGP) CL wearers who are unable to attend face-to-face consultations.

METHODS

The study consists of three components. Firstly, an approach to enable the assessment of a patient's CL fitting and cornea remotely. Secondly, to find an affordable and reliable method to obtain a patient's visual acuity (VA), and thirdly, to develop a questionnaire to provide practitioners with information to deliver optimal patient care.

RESULTS

The use of a macro lens, smartphone, and auxiliary materials enables high-quality images of the anterior eye and RGP CL to be obtained. Two free and validated smartphone applications (apps) for VA measurements were identified which are available on Android and iOS systems. Two questionnaires were also developed to enable practitioners to obtain additional patient information to facilitate optimal patient care.

CONCLUSION

This study has developed the components of a remote CL consultation to enable patients who cannot attend scheduled appointments to receive care and advice to ensure the safety of their RGP CL wear. The tools involved in this study are low-cost, affordable, and an adjunct, not a substitute, for face-to-face consultations.

Development and Testing of a Compact Autorefractor Based on Double-Pass Imaging

Autorefraction is an objective way to determine the refractive error of the eye, without the need for feedback by the patient or a well-educated practitioner. To make refractive measurements more accessible in the background of the growing prevalence of myopia, a compact autorefractor was built, containing only few optical components and relying on double-pass imaging and the physical properties of the point-spread function and digital image processing instead. A method was developed to analyze spherical defocus as well as the defocus and angle of astigmatism. The device was tested using calibrator eye models in a range of ± 15 D spherical defocus and -3 D astigmatic defocus. Reliable results could be achieved across the whole measurement range, with only a small increase in deviation toward high values of refractive errors, showing the feasibility of a PSF-based approach for a compact and low-cost solution for objective measurements of refractive error.

Validation of a simple-to-use, affordable, portable, wavefront aberrometry-based auto refractometer in the adult population: A prospective study

BACKGROUND

Refraction is one of the key components of a comprehensive eye examination. Auto refractometers that are reliable and affordable can be beneficial, especially in a low-resource community setting. The study aimed to validate the accuracy of a novel wave-front aberrometry-based auto refractometer, Instaref R20 against the open-field system and subjective refraction in an adult population.

METHODS

All the participants underwent a comprehensive eye examination including objective refraction, subjective acceptance, anterior and posterior segment evaluation. Refraction was performed without cycloplegia using WAM5500 open-field auto refractometer (OFAR) and Instaref R20, the study device. Agreement between both methods was evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis. The repeatability of the device based on three measurements in a subgroup of 40 adults was assessed.

RESULTS

The refractive error was measured in 132 participants (mean age,30.53 ± 9.36 years, 58.3% female). The paired mean difference of the refraction values of the study device against OFAR was - 0.13D for M, - 0.0002D (J0) and - 0.13D (J45) and against subjective refraction (SR) was - 0.09D (M), 0.06 (J0) and 0.03D (J45). The device agreed within +/- 0.50D of OFAR in 78% of eyes for M, 79% for J0 and 78% for J45. The device agreed within +/- 0.5D of SR values for M (84%), J0 (86%) and J45 (89%).

CONCLUSION

This study found a good agreement between the measurements obtained with the portable autorefractor against open-field refractometer and SR values. It has a potential application in population-based community vision screening programs for refractive error correction without the need for highly trained personnel.

Comparison of the Near Eye Tool for Refractive Assessment (NETRA) and non-cycloplegic subjective refraction

Objective

The NETRA (Near Eye Tool for Refractive Assessment) is a smartphone-based refractive tool that allows for self-evaluation of refractive error. This study investigates the validity of the NETRA with and without cycloplegia to non-cycloplegic subjective refractions (SR).

Methods and analysis

Participants underwent NETRA measurements without cycloplegia, and again after the administration of cycloplegia (cyclopentolate hydrochloride 1%). Non-cycloplegic SR were also performed. Variation of refractive measurements in symmetric dioptric power space were investigated using stereo-pair comets, hypothesis tests for variances and means. Bland-Altman plots were applied to better understand validity of the NETRA against non-cycloplegic SR. Coefficients of repeatability and intraclass correlation coefficients were also determined.

Results

The sample included 22 women (64.7%) and 12 men (35.3%); most were indigenous Africans (52.9%) with mean age and SD of 20.24±1.95 years. Variation of refractive measurements were mainly stigmatic (spherical), and variation of NETRA measurements decreased after cycloplegia. The pre-cycloplegia NETRA measurements (and their means) for the right and left eyes were more negative (myopic) in power than the post-cycloplegia NETRA measurements and means. On average, eyes were approximately 1.25 D more myopic with the NETRA without cycloplegia. With cycloplegia, NETRA results were in closer agreement with non-cycloplegic SR for the same eyes.

Conclusion

NETRA validity to SR, even in the absence of cycloplegia, suggests the instrument may be useful in geographical regions where self-refractions might be potentially helpful in addressing limitations in eye and vision care.

Tele-refraction in tele-eye care settings

Refraction is an important part of a comprehensive eye examination, and when performed remotely through information and communication technology or when its results are transmitted for remote analysis, this procedure is called tele-refraction. Uncorrected refractive errors are the main reason for consultation in primary eye care, and an increasing number of eye care providers offer tele-refraction services in response to the global demand. Even so, very little literature exists on how the correction of refractive errors can be managed through tele-eye care. The objectives of this review are to examine the integration of tele-refraction in different eye care models and to report the existing findings regarding patient satisfaction towards tele-refraction and the efficacy of tele-refraction. Searches were undertaken on Medline, Embase, EBM Reviews, CINAHL and Web of Science to identify relevant articles. All original studies describing a clinical tele-refraction service and its outcomes were included. Out of 1322 articles, 15 were retained for analysis and have shown that tele-refraction has been provided for general eye care (n = 10; 67%), refractive-only examinations (n = 3; 20%) or disease-specific screening (n = 2; 13%). Ten (67%) had a hybrid telemedicine modality. Given the small number of included studies and the lack of outcomes comparing refractive errors between face-to-face and remote refraction, it is concluded that the current scientific literature does not reflect the increasing availability of tele-refraction in clinical practice. More studies on remote refraction should be conducted to better understand its efficacy, cost-effectiveness and impacts on patient satisfaction and management.

Serafini R, Lakhtakia S, Valliani AA, Warburton AJ, Patel A, Zhou D, Sklar B, Chelnis J, Elahi E. Portable hardware & software technologies for addressing ophthalmic health disparities: A systematic review

Vision impairment continues to be a major global problem, as the WHO estimates 2.2 billion people struggling with vision loss or blindness. One billion of these cases, however, can be prevented by expanding diagnostic capabilities. Direct global healthcare costs associated with these conditions totaled $255 billion in 2010, with a rapid upward projection to $294 billion in 2020. Accordingly, WHO proposed 2030 targets to enhance integration and patient-centered vision care by expanding refractive error and cataract worldwide coverage. Due to the limitations in cost and portability of adapted vision screening models, there is a clear need for new, more accessible vision testing tools in vision care. This comparative, systematic review highlights the need for new ophthalmic equipment and approaches while looking at existing and emerging technologies that could expand the capacity for disease identification and access to diagnostic tools. Specifically, the review focuses on portable hardware- and software-centered strategies that can be deployed in remote locations for detection of ophthalmic conditions and refractive error. Advancements in portable hardware, automated software screening tools, and big data-centric analytics, including machine learning, may provide an avenue for improving ophthalmic healthcare.

COMPARISON OF SMARTPHONE-BASED AND AUTOMATED REFRACTION WITH SUBJECTIVE REFRACTION FOR SCREENING OF REFRACTIVE ERRORS

PURPOSE

To compare Netra smartphone-based and automated refraction with subjective refraction for screening of refractive errors.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study at the University of Malaya Medical Centre, Kuala Lumpur. Subjects underwent subjective refraction, then automated refraction, and finally Netra smartphone-based refraction. All results were converted to power vectors (M, J0 and J45) and were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA and Bland-Altman plots. Sensitivity and specificity were determined. The best cut-off points were determined from ROC curve analysis. P < .05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Data from the right eyes of 204 subjects were analysed. Mean age was 36.6 ± 15.7 years (range 16-78 years). Spherical equivalent [mean (95% CI)] from Netra and automated refraction were similar, and both more myopic than subjective refraction; -2.87 (-3.23 to -2.51), -2.85 (-3.21 to -2.49) and -2.46 (-2.83 to -2.10) respectively (p < .001). Differences in J0 and J45 between Netra and subjective refraction were not statistically significant (0.10 vs 0.11 and 0.01 vs -0.02 respectively, both p > .05), but those between automated and subjective refraction were (0.06 vs 0.11 and 0.07 vs -0.02, p = .004 and p < .001 respectively). Bland Altman plots showed the 95% limits of agreement with Netra refraction were wider than with automated refraction (-2.21D to 1.42D vs. -1.90D to 1.16D respectively).

CONCLUSION

Netra smartphone-based refraction gives similar readings to automated refraction, and both show myopic overestimation when compared to subjective refraction. However, due to non-insignificant practical usage issues, its use as a screening tool for refractive errors is limited.

Evaluation of a Portable Wavefront Aberrometer for Community Screening Refraction in the Elderly

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.

Better one or two? A systematic review of portable automated refractors

INTRODUCTION

More than 400 million people suffer from visual impairment globally, with more than half due to uncorrected refractive error. Autorefraction (AR) is the most common examination performed prior to prescribing glasses. As technology advances, so has the accuracy and number of portable autorefractors available. Portable technology has become acutely important with the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and the conversion of in-person clinical evaluations to remote telemedicine encounters. Patients and providers want to do as much as possible remotely. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic literature review of the accuracy and effectiveness of available portable automated refractors compared to the current standard of care, subjective refraction (SR).

METHODS

A literature search of PubMED, Embase and ClinicalTrials.gov 97 unique publications in English on portable autorefractors. Twelve studies comparing a portable AR device to at least one form of SR were systematically included in this review.

RESULTS

There were four portable autorefractors (Netra, Quicksee, Retinomax and SVOne) studied against SR. There was high patient acceptance of glasses prescriptions by the Quicksee alone, with 87% subjects seeing the same or better than SR. Quicksee was more accurate than Netra and Retinomax. SVOne was preferred over Netra and outperformed Retinomax in multiple measures, despite Retinomax being the fastest test.

DISCUSSION

There are numerous portable autorefractors available, but few were compared against SR. Quicksee and SVOne are the most accurate and patient-preferred devices. Quicksee was the most accurate, and it performed clinically the same as SR in some reports.

Advances in Telemedicine in Ophthalmology

Telemedicine is the provision of healthcare-related services from a distance and is poised to move healthcare from the physician's office back into the patient's home. The field of ophthalmology is often at the forefront of technological advances in medicine including telemedicine and the use of artificial intelligence. Multiple studies have demonstrated the reliability of tele-ophthalmology for use in screening and diagnostics and have demonstrated benefits to patients, physicians, as well as payors. There remain obstacles to widespread implementation, but recent legislation and regulation passed due to the devastating COVID-19 pandemic have helped to reduce some of these barriers. This review describes the current status of tele-ophthalmology in the United States including benefits, hurdles, current programs, technology, and developments in artificial intelligence. With ongoing advances patients may benefit from improved detection and earlier treatment of eye diseases, resulting in better care and improved visual outcomes.

Could telehealth help eye care practitioners adapt contact lens services during the COVID-19 pandemic?

The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated government-imposed restrictions on social interactions and travel. For many, the guidance has led to new ways of working, most notably a shift towards working remotely. While eye care practitioners (ECPs) may continue to provide urgent or emergency eye care, in many cases the travel restrictions present a unique challenge by preventing conventional face-to-face examination. Telephone triage provides a useful starting point for establishing at-risk and emergency patients; but patient examination is central to contact lens patient care. The indeterminate period over which conventional practice will be suspended, and the risk that resumption of 'normal' practice could be impeded by a potential secondary peak in COVID-19 cases, hastens the need for practitioners to adapt their delivery of eyecare. Specifically, it is prudent to reflect upon supportive evidence for more comprehensive approaches to teleoptometry in contact lens practice. Smartphone based ocular imaging is an area which has seen considerable growth, particularly for imaging the posterior eye. Smartphone imaging of the anterior eye requires additional specialised instrumentation unlikely to be available to patients at home. Further, there is only limited evidence for self-administered image capture. In general, digital photographs, are useful for detection of gross anterior eye changes, but subtle changes are less discernible. For the assessment of visual acuity, many electronic test charts have been validated for use by practitioners. Research into self-administered visual acuity measures remains limited. The absence of a comprehensive evidence base for teleoptometry limits ECPs, particularly during this pandemic. Knowledge gaps ought to be addressed to facilitate development of optometry specific evidence-based guidance for telecare. In particular, advances in ocular self-imaging could help move this field forwards.

Validation of an Affordable Handheld Wavefront Autorefractor

SIGNIFICANCE

There is a critical need for tools that increase the accessibility of eye care to address the most common cause of vision impairment: uncorrected refractive errors. This work assesses the performance of an affordable autorefractor, which could help reduce the burden of this health care problem in low-resource communities.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to validate the commercial version of a portable wavefront autorefractor for measuring refractive errors.

METHODS

Refraction was performed without cycloplegia using (1) a standard clinical procedure consisting of an objective measurement with a desktop autorefractor followed by subjective refraction (SR) and (2) with the handheld autorefractor. Agreement between both methods was evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis and by comparing the visual acuity (VA) with trial frames set to the resulting measurements.

RESULTS

The study was conducted on 54 patients (33.9 ± 14.1 years of age) with a spherical equivalent (M) refraction determined by SR ranging from -7.25 to 4.25 D (mean ± SD, -0.93 ± 1.95 D). Mean differences between the portable autorefractor and SR were 0.09 ± 0.39, -0.06 ± 0.13, and 0.02 ± 0.12 D for M, J0, and J45, respectively. The device agreed within 0.5 D of SR in 87% of the eyes for spherical equivalent power. The average VAs achieved from trial lenses set to the wavefront autorefractor and SR results were 0.02 ± 0.015 and 0.015 ± 0.042 logMAR units, respectively. Visual acuity resulting from correction based on the device was the same as or better than that achieved by SR in 87% of the eyes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found excellent agreement between the measurements obtained with the portable autorefractor and the prescriptions based on SR and only small differences between the VA achieved by either method.

Screening for Stereopsis of Children Using an Autostereoscopic Smartphone

Background

The advantage of using an autostereoscopic smartphone is that it can achieve 3D effects without the need for glasses. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether this technology could be utilized to detect stereoacuity.

Methods

An autostereoscopic smartphone was used to imitate Lang stereotest I & II, Pass Test 3, Dinosaur Stereoacuity Test, and the Random Dot Stereo Acuity Test to screen the stereopsis of children from 3–6 years old.

Results

No significant difference was found between each pair of groups (autostereoscopic smartphone vs. Lang stereotest I, Lang stereotest II, Pass Test 3, Dinosaur Stereoacuity Test, and Random Dot Stereo Acuity Test, respectively; Wilcoxon signed-rank test, P value all >0.05). All of the weighted kappa were higher than 0.84. Therefore, all of the comparisons between measurements showed a high level of agreement.

Conclusions

The autostereoscopic smartphone is an effective tool when used for the screening of deficiency in stereopsis.