Effect of Instrument Design and Technique on the Precision and Accuracy of Objective Refraction Measurement
Clicks: 228
ID: 261504
2020
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
30.0
/100
228 views
41 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #202 of 253 articles by views in journal of clinical medicine
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 253 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
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.
| Reference Key |
domínguez-vicent2020journaleffect
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Alberto Domínguez-Vicent;Loujain Al-Soboh;Rune Brautaset;Abinaya Priya Venkataraman;Domínguez-Vicent, Alberto;Al-Soboh, Loujain;Brautaset, Rune;Venkataraman, Abinaya Priya; |
| Journal | journal of clinical medicine |
| Year | 2020 |
| DOI |
10.3390/jcm9103061
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.