Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Accuracy of a Smartphone-based Autorefractor Compared with Criterion-standard Refraction.
Optom Vis Sci 2018; 95(12):1135-1141OV

Abstract

SIGNIFICANCE

Uncorrected refractive error is a prevalent problem throughout the world especially among the low-income population who have limited access to professional eye care and cannot afford eyeglasses.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and usability of a low-cost, portable, smartphone-based autorefractor (Netra, EyeNetra Inc., Somerville, MA) in adults.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted to compare the portable refractor with subjective (manifest and cycloplegic) refraction for sequential adult participants with best-corrected visual acuity of 20/40 or greater. For each method of refraction, the spherical equivalent was calculated. Differences between methods were tested with linear mixed regression models. A validated usability questionnaire was administered regarding ease of use (100-point scale, higher scores better) for the portable autorefractor.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven subjects (152 eyes) were studied (age range, 20 to 90 years; mean ± standard deviation, 51.9 ± 18.3 years). Mean spherical equivalent by the portable device was -2.76 D (range, -14.75 to 3.63 D) compared with -2.49 D (range, -15.25 to 4.25 D) by manifest refraction. The mean relative difference in spherical equivalent between methods was -0.27 D (P = .001, significantly different than 0 D). The mean absolute difference between methods was 0.69 D (P < .001, significantly different than 0.5-D absolute difference). Similar results were found when comparing spherical equivalent between Netra and cycloplegic refraction methods. Subjects reported average ease of use for the Netra of 75.4 ± 19.8.

CONCLUSIONS

The portable autorefractor had small but clinically significant differences from subjective refraction. The device's scores on the usability scale indicate good overall patient acceptance. The device may be valuable for use where there is limited access to a trained refractionist.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, W. K. Kellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, W. K. Kellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, W. K. Kellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, W. K. Kellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, W. K. Kellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, W. K. Kellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language

eng

PubMed ID

30451804

Citation

Jeganathan, V Swetha E., et al. "Accuracy of a Smartphone-based Autorefractor Compared With Criterion-standard Refraction." Optometry and Vision Science : Official Publication of the American Academy of Optometry, vol. 95, no. 12, 2018, pp. 1135-1141.
Jeganathan VSE, Valikodath N, Niziol LM, et al. Accuracy of a Smartphone-based Autorefractor Compared with Criterion-standard Refraction. Optom Vis Sci. 2018;95(12):1135-1141.
Jeganathan, V. S. E., Valikodath, N., Niziol, L. M., Hansen, S., Apostolou, H., & Woodward, M. A. (2018). Accuracy of a Smartphone-based Autorefractor Compared with Criterion-standard Refraction. Optometry and Vision Science : Official Publication of the American Academy of Optometry, 95(12), pp. 1135-1141. doi:10.1097/OPX.0000000000001308.
Jeganathan VSE, et al. Accuracy of a Smartphone-based Autorefractor Compared With Criterion-standard Refraction. Optom Vis Sci. 2018;95(12):1135-1141. PubMed PMID: 30451804.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Accuracy of a Smartphone-based Autorefractor Compared with Criterion-standard Refraction. AU - Jeganathan,V Swetha E, AU - Valikodath,Nita, AU - Niziol,Leslie M, AU - Hansen,Sean, AU - Apostolou,Hannah, AU - Woodward,Maria A, PY - 2019/12/01/pmc-release PY - 2018/11/20/pubmed PY - 2018/11/20/medline PY - 2018/11/20/entrez SP - 1135 EP - 1141 JF - Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry JO - Optom Vis Sci VL - 95 IS - 12 N2 - SIGNIFICANCE: Uncorrected refractive error is a prevalent problem throughout the world especially among the low-income population who have limited access to professional eye care and cannot afford eyeglasses. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and usability of a low-cost, portable, smartphone-based autorefractor (Netra, EyeNetra Inc., Somerville, MA) in adults. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted to compare the portable refractor with subjective (manifest and cycloplegic) refraction for sequential adult participants with best-corrected visual acuity of 20/40 or greater. For each method of refraction, the spherical equivalent was calculated. Differences between methods were tested with linear mixed regression models. A validated usability questionnaire was administered regarding ease of use (100-point scale, higher scores better) for the portable autorefractor. RESULTS: Eighty-seven subjects (152 eyes) were studied (age range, 20 to 90 years; mean ± standard deviation, 51.9 ± 18.3 years). Mean spherical equivalent by the portable device was -2.76 D (range, -14.75 to 3.63 D) compared with -2.49 D (range, -15.25 to 4.25 D) by manifest refraction. The mean relative difference in spherical equivalent between methods was -0.27 D (P = .001, significantly different than 0 D). The mean absolute difference between methods was 0.69 D (P < .001, significantly different than 0.5-D absolute difference). Similar results were found when comparing spherical equivalent between Netra and cycloplegic refraction methods. Subjects reported average ease of use for the Netra of 75.4 ± 19.8. CONCLUSIONS: The portable autorefractor had small but clinically significant differences from subjective refraction. The device's scores on the usability scale indicate good overall patient acceptance. The device may be valuable for use where there is limited access to a trained refractionist. SN - 1538-9235 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/30451804/Accuracy_of_a_Smartphone-based_Autorefractor_Compared_with_Criterion-standard_Refraction L2 - http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000001308 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -