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

Justyna Wosik; Małgorzata Patrzykont; Jacek Pniewski

doi:10.1364/JOSAA.36.0000B1

Journal of the Optical Society of America A
Vol. 36,
Issue 4,
pp. B1-B6
(2019)
•https://doi.org/10.1364/JOSAA.36.0000B1

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

Justyna Wosik, Małgorzata Patrzykont, and Jacek Pniewski

Not Accessible

Your library or personal account may give you access

Get PDF
Email
Share
Get Citation
Copy Citation Text
Justyna Wosik, Małgorzata Patrzykont, and Jacek Pniewski, "Comparison of refractive error measurements by three different models of autorefractors and subjective refraction in young adults," J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 36, B1-B6 (2019)

Export Citation
- BibTex
- Endnote (RIS)
- HTML
- Plain Text
Citation alert
Save article

Check for updates

Abstract

In this paper, the accuracy of noncycloplegic refractive error measurements performed by three autorefractors, Nidek ARK-510A, Visionix L80 Wave+, and Shin-Nippon NVision-K 5001, compared with subjective refraction (SR) in young adults is analyzed using statistical methods. The analysis is carried out in terms of spherical equivalent (SE), astigmatism, and two Jackson crossed-cylinder vectors. Fifty-one subjects aged 19–23 were examined. The differences between objective refraction (OR) measured by autorefractors are not statistically significant in either SE or cylindrical components. However, in comparison with subjective refraction, the best agreement in SE was provided by K 5001. For all instruments, differences in SE between OR and SR are statistically significant.

Full Article | PDF Article

More Like This

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

Justyna Kiermasz and Jacek Pniewski
J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 40(9) 1733-1740 (2023)

Peripheral refractive errors in myopic, emmetropic, and hyperopic young subjects

Anne Seidemann, Frank Schaeffel, Antonio Guirao, Noberto Lopez-Gil, and Pablo Artal
J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 19(12) 2363-2373 (2002)

Two-dimensional peripheral refraction in adults

Xiaoyun Xi, Jiangdong Hao, Zhenghua Lin, Sidi Wang, Zhikuan Yang, Weizhong Lan, and Pablo Artal
Biomed. Opt. Express 14(5) 2375-2385 (2023)

Previous Article Next Article

Cited By

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Cited by links are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Figures (9)

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Figure files are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Tables (3)

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Article tables are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Equations (3)

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Equations are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

	ARK 510A ( $N = 102$ )	NVision-K 5001 ( $N = 102$ )	L80 Wave+ ( $N = 102$ )	$p$
Mean SE (range)	$- 1.67 \pm 2.23$ (−10.75 to 2.38)	$- 1.24 \pm 2.15$ (−9.81 to 1.13)	$- 1.76 \pm 2.33$ (−12.00 to 2.56)	0.22
Mean cylinder power (range)	$- 0.67 \pm 0.62$ (−3.25 to 0.00)	$- 0.63 \pm 0.56$ (−2.75 to 0.00)	$- 0.66 \pm 0.63$ (−3.50 to −0.13)	0.90
Mean $J_{0}$ (range)	$0.179 \pm 0.377$ (−0.873 to 1.455)	$0.143 \pm 0.350$ (−0.810 to 1.297)	$0.119 \pm 0.391$ (−0.998 to 1.723)	0.51
Mean $J_{45}$ (range)	$0.013 \pm 0.190$ (−0.763 to 0.861)	$0.039 \pm 0.181$ (−0.526 to 0.847)	$0.005 \pm 0.204$ (−0.688 to 1.079)	0.42

	ARK 510A ( $N = 51$ )	NVision-K 5001 ( $N = 51$ )	L80 Wave+ ( $N = 51$ )
$Δ SE$	$0.25 \pm 0.53$	$- 0.18 \pm 0.42$	$0.34 \pm 0.55$
$Δ J_{0}$	$- 0.0874 \pm 0.1789$	$- 0.0558 \pm 0.1854$	$- 0.0297 \pm 0.1770$
$Δ J_{45}$	$- 0.0049 \pm 0.1186$	$- 0.0282 \pm 0.1382$	$- 0.0003 \pm 0.1319$

	All Prescriptions with a Cylindrical Component			Prescriptions with a Subjective $Cylindrical Component \geq 0.75 D$
	ARK 510A ( $N = 57$ )	NV-K 5001 ( $N = 56$ )	L80 Wave+ ( $N = 62$ )	ARK 510A ( $N = 25$ )	NV-K 5001 ( $N = 24$ )	L80 Wave+ ( $N = 25$ )
$\pm 5 °$	36.8%	41.1%	48.3%	58.3%	54.2%	76.0%
$\pm 10 °$	64.9%	58.9%	68.3%	75.0%	70.8%	88.0%
$\pm 15 °$	75.4%	67.9%	85.0%	87.5%	75.0%	92.0%
$\pm 20 °$	91.2%	76.8%	90.0%	95.8%	87.5%	96.0%

	ARK 510A ( $N = 102$ )	NVision-K 5001 ( $N = 102$ )	L80 Wave+ ( $N = 102$ )	$p$
Mean SE (range)	$- 1.67 \pm 2.23$ (−10.75 to 2.38)	$- 1.24 \pm 2.15$ (−9.81 to 1.13)	$- 1.76 \pm 2.33$ (−12.00 to 2.56)	0.22
Mean cylinder power (range)	$- 0.67 \pm 0.62$ (−3.25 to 0.00)	$- 0.63 \pm 0.56$ (−2.75 to 0.00)	$- 0.66 \pm 0.63$ (−3.50 to −0.13)	0.90
Mean $J_{0}$ (range)	$0.179 \pm 0.377$ (−0.873 to 1.455)	$0.143 \pm 0.350$ (−0.810 to 1.297)	$0.119 \pm 0.391$ (−0.998 to 1.723)	0.51
Mean $J_{45}$ (range)	$0.013 \pm 0.190$ (−0.763 to 0.861)	$0.039 \pm 0.181$ (−0.526 to 0.847)	$0.005 \pm 0.204$ (−0.688 to 1.079)	0.42

	ARK 510A ( $N = 51$ )	NVision-K 5001 ( $N = 51$ )	L80 Wave+ ( $N = 51$ )
$Δ SE$	$0.25 \pm 0.53$	$- 0.18 \pm 0.42$	$0.34 \pm 0.55$
$Δ J_{0}$	$- 0.0874 \pm 0.1789$	$- 0.0558 \pm 0.1854$	$- 0.0297 \pm 0.1770$
$Δ J_{45}$	$- 0.0049 \pm 0.1186$	$- 0.0282 \pm 0.1382$	$- 0.0003 \pm 0.1319$

Abstract

Cited By

Figures (9)

Tables (3)

Equations (3)

Journal of the Optical Society of America A