Comparison of refractive error measurements by three different models of autorefractors and subjective refraction in young adults

Subjective refraction using power vectors by updating a conventional phoropter with a Stokes lens for continuous astigmatic power generation

PURPOSE

To implement a pure power vector method for monocular subjective refraction using a regular phoropter with the only modification being the inclusion of a Stokes lens. The proposed methodology was tested with three different Stokes lenses, and the results were compared with conventional clinical refraction procedures.

METHODS

Power vector subjective refraction was performed by attaching a Stokes lens to the Risley prism holder. Stokes lenses allow for pure astigmatic compensation in the form of the J0 , J45 components while the spherical lenses in the phoropter allow determination of the spherical component in the form of M (spherical equivalent). The proposed routine is presented step-by-step using three Stokes lenses having different astigmatic powers.

RESULTS

Monocular subjective refraction was performed on 26 healthy subjects with a mean age of 44 ± 16 years, mean spherical equivalent of -0.56 D (range -5.50 to +2.38 D) and refractive astigmatism ≤1.50 D. No differences were found between the results obtained with the conventional technique versus the vector-based procedure for the spherical equivalent (p = 0.28) or astigmatic components (p = 0.34). In addition, visual acuity (VA) was equivalent through the refractions measured with the conventional and vector procedures (p = 0.12). Repeatability coefficients for J0 and J45 with the new vector methodology were <0.38 D.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed routine could be helpful for cases where it is difficult to get a valid starting point for conventional refraction (e.g., irregular corneas and media opacities), for testing facilities with limited resources/equipment and/or for motivated clinicians who wish to know about alternative methods of refractive error determination.

Accuracy and intrasession variability of noncycloplegic autorefraction of school-aged children and adolescents

The aims of the study were (1) to compare the accuracy and intrasession variability of noncycloplegic autorefraction (AR) obtained by a photorefractor and conventional and open-field autorefractors and (2) to evaluate the impact of accommodative and binocular vision anomalies on the accuracy of autorefraction. Twenty-nine children and adolescents aged 8-18 years were examined. All instruments gave more myopic results than subjective refraction (SR). Mean differences between the SR and the AR were +0.52/-0.25×96∘ for the photorefractor, +0.63/-0.31×93∘ for the conventional autorefractor, and +0.19/-0.26×94∘ for the open-field instrument. The photorefractor appeared to be the most repeatable. The impact of the examined vision anomalies on the accuracy of autorefraction was not statistically significant.

A Comparison of Autorefraction and Subjective Refraction in an Academic Optometry Clinic

BACKGROUND

 Refractive error is the most common cause of decreased visual acuity. Refractive measurement in adults consists of cycloplegic (objective) and manifest (subjective) refraction. Although the effectiveness of autorefraction is a crucial factor, there needs to be more information on its accuracy and precision on each autorefractor compared with subjective measurement in Thai patients.

OBJECTIVE

 To compare the accuracy and precision of the two autorefractors' findings in Rajavithi Hospital, OptoChek Plus, and TOMEY Auto Refractometer RC-5000, with each other and with those of the subjective method.

MATERIALS & METHODS

 An observational study was conducted at the Ophthalmology clinic in Rajavithi Hospital from March 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022. All subjects were tested using the two autorefractors (OptoChek Plus and TOMEY Auto Refractometer RC-5000) and subjective refraction. One eye per subject was included in the study.

RESULTS

 Forty-eight patients (48 eyes) were enrolled in the study. The difference between spherical powers obtained by OptoChek and subjective refraction was not significantly different; however, there was a significant difference between those calculated by Tomey and the subjective method (p=0.77, p=0.04 respectively). The variations between cylindrical powers arrived at by the two autorefraction techniques and those calculated by the subjective method were significantly different (OptoChek and Tomey p-=0.01, p-value<0.001, respectively). In addition, 95% of the limit of agreement (95% of LOA) was low in the cylindrical measurement of each autorefractor compared with subjective refraction. (84.61%, 86.36%, respectively). No statistically significant difference between the spherical equivalent calculated by the two autorefractors and that of subjective refraction was observed in the present study (OptoChek: p-value=0.26 and Tomey: p-value=0.77).

CONCLUSIONS

 There was a clinically significant difference between the cylindrical power calculated by the two autorefractors and those obtained from subjective refraction. Patients with high astigmatism should be monitored closely when measured by autorefractors, as there can be a slightly lower agreement between objective and subjective refraction.

Effects of Myopia on Rates of Change in Optical Coherence Tomography Measured Retinal Layer Thicknesses in People with Multiple Sclerosis and Healthy Controls

PURPOSE

To quantify the associations of myopia with longitudinal changes in retinal layer thicknesses in people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) and healthy controls (HC).

METHODS

A cohort of PwMS and HC with recorded refractive error (RE) prospectively scanned on Cirrus HD-OCT at the Johns Hopkins MS Center was assessed for inclusion. Exclusion criteria included OCT follow-up < 6 months, ocular comorbidities, incidental OCT pathologies, and inadequate scan quality. Eyes were classified as having high myopia (HM) (RE≤ -6 diopters), low myopia (LM) (RE> -6 and ≤ -3 diopters), or no myopia (NM) (RE> -3 and ≤ +2.75). Linear mixed-effects regression models were used in analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 213 PwMS (eyes: 67 HM, 98 LM, 207 NM) and 80 HC (eyes: 26 HM, 37 LM, 93 NM) were included. Baseline average ganglion cell/inner plexiform (GCIPL) and peri-papillary retinal nerve fiber layer (pRNFL) thicknesses were lower in MS HM compared with MS NM (diff: -3.2 µm, 95% CI: -5.5 to -0.8, p = 0.008 and -5.3 µm, 95% CI: -9.0 to -1.7, p = 0.004, respectively), and similarly in HC HM, as compared with HC NM. Baseline superior, inferior, and nasal pRNFL thicknesses were lower in HM compared with NM, while temporal pRNFL thickness was higher, both in MS and HC (MS: 7.1 µm, 95% CI: 2.7-11.6, p = 0.002; HC: 4.7 µm, 95% CI: -0.3 to 9.7, p = 0.07). No longitudinal differences in rates of GCIPL change were noted between HM and LM vs. NM, either in MS or HC.

CONCLUSION

Cross-sectional differences in average GCIPL and pRNFL thicknesses are commonly seen in people with HM as compared to reference normative values from people with NM and can lead to false attribution of pathology if RE is not taken into account. However, our study suggests that longitudinal changes in average GCIPL thickness in PwMS with myopia are similar in magnitude to PwMS with NM, and therefore are appropriate for monitoring disease-related pathology.

Effect of six different autorefractor designs on the precision and accuracy of refractive error measurement

PURPOSE

To evaluate the precision of objective refraction measurements with six different autorefractors that have different designs and measurement principles and to compare the objective refraction values with the subjective refraction.

METHOD

Objective refraction of 55 participants was measured using six autorefractors with different designs. The instrument features mainly varied in terms of measurement principles, inbuilt fogging, open or closed view, and handheld or stationary designs. Two repeated measurements of objective refraction were performed with each autorefractor. The objective refractions from the six autorefractors were compared with the standard subjective refraction. The repeatability limit and Bland-Altman were used to describe the precision and accuracy of each autorefractor, respectively. The analysis was done using the spherical component of the refraction and the power-vector components, spherical equivalent (M), and cylindrical vectors.

RESULTS

The repeatability of all autorefractors was within 1.00 and 0.35D for measuring the M and both cylindrical components, respectively. Inbuilt fogging was the common feature of the instruments that showed better repeatability. Compared to subjective refraction, the mean difference for sphere and M was below +0.50D, and it was close to zero for the cylindrical components. The instruments that had inbuilt fogging showed narrower limit of agreement. When combined with fogging, the open field refractors showed better precision and accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

The inbuilt fogging is the most important feature followed by the open view in determining the precision and accuracy of the autorefractor values.

Hand-Held Nidek versus Table-Mounted Huvitz Autorefractors and Their Agreement with Subjective Refraction in Adults

Objective

To compare the agreement between commercially available table mounted and a hand-held autorefractors and their agreement with subjective refraction. The effect of different body position with the handheld autorefractometer was also evaluated.

Methods

A prospective study was performed on 253 healthy eyes. Refraction was acquired by a table-mounted Huvitz and hand-held Nidek autorefractometer, subjective refraction was acquired. Refractive errors were compared in terms of spherical equivalent (SE), cylinder power, and the J0 and J45. The level of agreement was evaluated by Bland–Altman plots.

Results

There was a significant difference in SE measurements between both devices and between them and subjective refraction (P=0.00). The Huvitz SE readings tended to be less myopic. However, limits of agreement (LOA) for SE were narrowest for Nidek sitting vs supine followed by Huvitz vs subjective SE refraction. The LOA for SE for Nidek sitting vs subjective SE were of wider range. For cylinder values, LOA were similar for all devices and positions and between them and subjective cylinder refraction.

Conclusion

Table mounted Huvitz and Nidek portable autorefractor cannot be used interchangeably in clinical practice except for estimation of the cylinder power. No difference in refraction between sitting and supine positions for portable Nidek autorefractor but with caution in cylinder axis. High agreement was achieved between subjective refraction and Huvitz readings but not with Nidek hand-held autorefractor. A highly reliable spectacle prescription could be done based on Huvitz readings. Both devices and positions could be used interchangeably in estimation of K-readings.

The effect of refractive error on optokinetic nystagmus

Subjective refraction is the gold-standard for prescribing refractive correction, but its accuracy is limited by patient’s subjective judgment about their clarity of vision. We asked if an involuntary eye movement, optokinetic nystagmus (OKN), could serve as an objective measure of visual-clarity, specifically measuring the dependence of OKN—elicited by drifting spatial-frequency filtered noise—on mean spherical equivalent (MSE) refractive error. In Experiment 1 we quantified OKN score—a measure of consistency with stimulus-direction—for participants with different MSEs. Estimates of MSE based on OKN scores correlate well with estimates of MSE made using autorefraction (r = 0.878, p < 0.001, Bland–Altman analysis: mean difference of 0.00D (95% limits of agreement: − 0.85 to + 0.85D). In Experiment 2, we quantified the relationship between OKN gain (ratio of tracking eye-movement velocity to stimulus velocity) and MSEs (− 2.00, − 1.00, − 0.50, 0.00 and + 1.00D) induced with contact lenses for each participant. The mean difference between measures of MSE based on autorefraction or on OKN gain was + 0.05D (− 0.90 to + 1.01D), and the correlation of these measures across participants was r = 0.976, p < 0.001. Results indicate that MSE attenuates OKN gain so that OKN can be used as an objective proxy for patient response to select the best corrective lens.

Effect of Instrument Design and Technique on the Precision and Accuracy of Objective Refraction Measurement

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the precision and accuracy of objective refraction measurement obtained with combinations of instrument design and technique. We also compared the performance of the instruments with subjective refraction measurements. Method and analysis: The objective refraction was measured in 71 subjects with three autorefractometers that have different designs and measurement principles (binocular with fogging, binocular without fogging, and monocular with fogging). Repeatability and reproducibility metrics were calculated for the objective refraction measurements. The agreement of the objective refraction measurements between the three instruments and the agreement with the subjective refraction measurements were evaluated.

RESULTS

All three autorefractometers had repeatability and reproducibility limits smaller than 0.70D. The smallest difference (0.10D) in the spherical equivalent was seen between the two binocular instruments. Compared with the subjective refraction, the binocular without fogging technique had the smallest mean difference in spherical equivalent (<0.20D) whereas the binocular fogging technique had the smallest limit of agreement interval (1.00D). For all comparisons, the mean difference and limit of agreement interval for the cylindrical components were lower than 0.10D and 0.75D, respectively.

CONCLUSION

All three instruments evaluated had good repeatability and reproducibility. The binocular fogging technique provided the best agreement with subjective refraction.

Advancing Digital Workflows for Refractive Error Measurements

Advancements in clinical measurement of refractive errors should lead to faster and more reliable measurements of such errors. The study investigated different aspects of advancements and the agreement of the spherocylindrical prescriptions obtained with an objective method of measurement ("Aberrometry" (AR)) and two methods of subjective refinements ("Wavefront Refraction" (WR) and "Standard Refraction" (StdR)). One hundred adults aged 20-78 years participated in the course of the study. Bland-Altman analysis of the right eye measurement of the spherocylindrical refractive error (M) identified mean differences (±95% limits of agreement) between the different types of measurements of +0.36 D (±0.76 D) for WR vs. AR (t-test: p < 0.001), +0.35 D (± 0.84 D) for StdR vs. AR (t-test: p < 0.001), and 0.0 D (± 0.65 D) for StdR vs. WR (t-test: p < 0.001). Monocular visual acuity was 0.0 logMAR in 96% of the tested eyes, when refractive errors were corrected with measurements from AR, indicating that only small differences between the different types of prescriptions are present.

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 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 (S_r) 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 (S_{rEYE REFRACT} = 0.21 D, S_rVX110 = 0.53 D) and J0 (S_{rEYE REFRACT} = 0.12 D, S_rVX110 = 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.