Validation of an Affordable Handheld Wavefront Autorefractor

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.

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 a Paediatric Population

Purpose

InstaRef R20 is a handheld, affordable auto refractometer based on Shack Hartmann aberrometry technology. The study's objective was to compare InstaRef R20's performance for identifying refractive error in a paediatric population to that of standard subjective and objective refraction under both pre- and post-cycloplegic conditions.

Methods

Refraction was performed using 1) standard clinical procedure consisting of retinoscopy followed by subjective refraction (SR) under pre- and post-cycloplegic conditions and 2) InstaRef R20. Agreement between both methods was evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis. The repeatability of the device based on three measurements in a subgroup of 20 children was assessed.

Results

The refractive error was measured in 132 children (mean age 12.31 ± 3 years). The spherical equivalent (M) and cylindrical components (J0 and J45) of the device had clinically acceptable differences (within ±0.50D) and acceptable agreement compared to standard pre- and post-cycloplegic manual retinoscopy and subjective refraction (SR). The device agreed within ± 0.50D of retinoscopy in 67% of eyes for M, 78% for J0 and 80% for J45 and within ± 0.50D of SR in 70% for M and 77% for cylindrical components.

Conclusion

InstaRef R20 has an acceptable agreement compared to standard retinoscopy in paediatric population. The measurements from this device can be used as a starting point for subjective acceptance. The device being simple to use, portable, reliable and affordable has the potential for large-scale community-based refractive error detection.

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.

Performance analysis of a compact auto-phoropter for accessible refractive assessment of the human eye

We present the performance analysis and specifications of a portable auto-phoropter system that can be employed for fast refractive assessment of a large population. A customized Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensor is developed to accurately measure the defocus and astigmatism of the eye within ±10D and ±6D, respectively. Three fluidic lenses are designed to correct the vision in real time. A digital Snellen chart is integrated into the system to validate the accuracy of the measurement and the correction by means of achieving 20/20 vision. The refractive error of eight subjects (16 eyes) has been measured objectively (without patient's feedback) using the proposed system and the results are compared with their clinical prescription through the Bland-Altman method. It is shown that the auto-phoropter takes less than 8 s to measure and correct the eye refractive error with an accuracy of ±0.25D.

Predicting subjective refraction with dynamic retinal image quality analysis

The aim of this work is to evaluate the performance of a novel algorithm that combines dynamic wavefront aberrometry data and descriptors of the retinal image quality from objective autorefractor measurements to predict subjective refraction. We conducted a retrospective study of the prediction accuracy and precision of the novel algorithm compared to standard search-based retinal image quality optimization algorithms. Dynamic measurements from 34 adult patients were taken with a handheld wavefront autorefractor and static data was obtained with a high-end desktop wavefront aberrometer. The search-based algorithms did not significantly improve the results of the desktop system, while the dynamic approach was able to simultaneously reduce the standard deviation (up to a 15% for reduction of spherical equivalent power) and the mean bias error of the predictions (up to 80% reduction of spherical equivalent power) for the handheld aberrometer. These results suggest that dynamic retinal image analysis can substantially improve the accuracy and precision of the portable wavefront autorefractor relative to subjective refraction.

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.

Combined anterior segment OCT and wavefront-based autorefractor using a shared beam

We have combined an anterior segment (AS) optical coherence tomography (OCT) system and a wavefront-based aberrometer with an approach that senses ocular wavefront aberrations using the OCT beam. Temporal interlacing of the OCT and aberrometer channels allows for OCT images and refractive error measurements to be acquired continuously and in real-time. The system measures refractive error with accuracy and precision comparable to that of clinical autorefractors. The proposed approach provides a compact modular design that is suitable for integrating OCT and wavefront-based autorefraction within the optical head of the ophthalmic surgical microscope for guiding cataract surgery or table-top devices for simultaneous autorefraction and ocular biometry.

Investigation of the Accuracy of a Low-Cost, Portable Autorefractor to Provide Well-Tolerated Eyeglass Prescriptions: A Randomized Crossover Trial

PURPOSE

To compare patient preferences for eyeglasses prescribed using a low-cost, portable wavefront autorefractor versus standard subjective refraction (SR).

DESIGN

Randomized, cross-over clinical trial.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged 18 to 40 years presenting with refractive errors (REs) to a tertiary eye hospital in Southern India.

METHODS

Participants underwent SR followed by autorefraction (AR) using the monocular version of the QuickSee device (PlenOptika Inc). An independent optician, masked to the refraction approach, prepared eyeglasses based on each refraction approach. Participants (masked to refraction source) were randomly assigned to use SR- or AR-based eyeglasses first, followed by the other pair, for 1 week each. At the end of each week, participants had their vision checked and were interviewed about their experience with the eyeglasses.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patients preferring eyeglasses were chosen using AR and SR.

RESULTS

The 400 participants enrolled between March 26, 2018, and August 2, 2019, had a mean (standard deviation) age of 28.4 (6.6) years, and 68.8% were women. There was a strong correlation between spherical equivalents using SR and AR (r = 0.97, P < 0.001) with a mean difference of -0.07 diopters (D) (95% limits of agreement [LoA], -0.68 to 0.83). Of the 301 patients (75.2%) who completed both follow-up visits, 50.5% (n = 152) and 49.5% (n = 149) preferred glasses prescribed using SR and AR, respectively (95% CI, 45.7-56.3; P = 0.86). There were no differences in demographic or vision characteristics between participants with different preferences (P > 0.05 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed a strong agreement between the prescriptions from SR and AR, and eyeglasses prescribed using SR and AR were equally preferred by patients. Wider use of prescribing based on AR alone in resource-limited settings is supported by these findings.

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.

Does the Accuracy and Repeatability of Refractive Error Estimates Depend on the Measurement Principle of Autorefractors?

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy and repeatability of refractive errors obtained using three autorefractors based on different measurement principles, vis-à-vis, gold-standard retinoscopy.

Methodology

Accuracy of noncycloplegic, sphero-cylindrical refractive error of 234 eyes was obtained using the rotary prism-based RM-8900 closed-field autorefractor, photorefraction based Spot vision screener, wavefront aberrometry based E-see, and streak retinoscopy by four different examiners, masked to the results of each other. Intersession repeatability of autorefractors was determined by repeat measurements in a subset of 40 subjects.

Results

Retinoscopy values of M, J₀, and J₄₅ power vectors for the cohort ranged from -10.2 to 8 D, -1.4 to 1.8 D, and -0.9 to 1.2 D, respectively. Across autorefractors, the interequipment bias of M and J₀ power vectors were statistically insignificant (< ±0.5 D; P > 0.05) but the corresponding limits of agreement were ±2.5 and ±1 D, respectively, without any trend across instruments or the patient's age (P > 0.5). Repeatability of M and J₀ power vectors were ±0.75 D and ±0.40 D, respectively, across autorefractors. The range of J₄₅ power vector was too narrow for any meaningful analysis.

Conclusions

Refractive errors measured using autorefractors operating on different principles show minimal bias and good short-term repeatability but relatively large agreement limits, vis-à-vis, retinoscopy. Among them, the wavefront aberrometry based E-see autorefractor performs relatively better in all measurement parameters evaluated here.

Translational Relevance

Although autorefractor estimates of noncycloplegic refractive error appears independent of their measurement principle, their relatively poor agreement with gold-standard retinoscopy warrants caution while used for screening and quantification of refractive errors.

Assesment of the QuickSee wavefront autorefractor for characterizing refractive errors in school-age children

Purpose

To assess the performance of an open-view binocular handheld aberrometer (QuickSee) for diagnosing refractive errors in children.

Methods

123 school-age children (9.9 ± 3.3 years) with moderate refractive error underwent autorefraction (AR) with a standard desktop device and subjective refraction (SR), with or without cycloplegia to determine their eyeglass prescription. Measurements with QuickSee (QS) were taken in 62 of these patients without cycloplegia (NC), and in 61 under cycloplegia (C). Differences in refraction values (AR vs SR vs QS) as well as the visual acuity (VA) achieved by the patients with each method (QS vs SR) were used to evaluate the performance of the device in measuring refractive error.

Results

The spherical equivalent refraction obtained by QS agreed within 0.5 D of the SR in 71% (NC) and 70% (C) of the cases. Agreement between the desktop autorefractor and SR for the same threshold was of 61% (NC) and 77% (C). VA resulting from QS refractions was equal to or better than that achieved by SR procedure in 77% (NC) and 74% (C) of the patients. Average improvement in VA with the QS refractions was of 8.6 and 13.4 optotypes for the NC and C groups respectively, while the SR procedure provided average improvements of 8.9 (NC) and 14.8 (C) optotypes.

Conclusions

The high level of agreement between QuickSee and subjective refraction together with the VA improvement achieved in both study groups using QuickSee refractions suggest that the device is a useful autorefraction tool for school-age children.

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.

Average gradient of Zernike polynomials over polygons

Wavefront estimation from slope sensor data is often achieved by fitting measured slopes with Zernike polynomial derivatives averaged over the sampling subapertures. Here we discuss how the calculation of these average derivatives can be reduced to one-dimensional integrals of the Zernike polynomials, rather than their derivatives, along the perimeter of each subaperture. We then use this result to derive closed-form expressions for the average Zernike polynomial derivatives over polygonal areas, only requiring evaluation of polynomials at the polygon vertices. Finally, these expressions are applied to simulated Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensors with 7 and 23 fully illuminated lenslets across a circular pupil, with their accuracy and calculation time compared against commonly used integration methods.