Academic Journal
أعرض في EDS

Comparison of Two Wavefront Autorefractors: Binocular Open-Field versus Monocular Closed-Field

التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
العنوان: Comparison of Two Wavefront Autorefractors: Binocular Open-Field versus Monocular Closed-Field
المؤلفون: Carracedo Rodríguez, Juan Gonzalo, Carpena Torres, Carlos, Batres Valderas, Laura, Serramito Blanco, María, González Bergaz, Anahí
بيانات النشر: Hindawi Publishing Corporation
سنة النشر: 2020
المجموعة: Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM): E-Prints Complutense
مصطلحات موضوعية: 617.75, 681.785, Wavefront autorefractor, Binocular open-field, Monocular closed-field, Visual fields, Autorefractor, Optometría, Óptica geométrica e instrumental, 2209.15 Optometría, 2209.06 Óptica geométrica
الوصف: Received: 28 Aug 2019; Revised: 14 Nov 2019; Accepted: 17 Dec 2019; Published: 03 Jan 2020 ; 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 (Sr) 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 (SrEYE REFRACT = 0.21 D, SrVX110 = 0.53 D) and J0 (SrEYE REFRACT = 0.12 D, SrVX110 = 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. ; Depto. de Optometría y Visión ; Unidad Docente de Bioquímica y Biología Molecular ; Fac. de Óptica y Optometría ; TRUE ; pub
نوع الوثيقة: article in journal/newspaper
وصف الملف: application/pdf
اللغة: English
تدمد: 2090-004X
Relation: https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8580471; https://www.hindawi.com/journals/joph/2020/8580471/; https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/6041
DOI: 10.1155/2020/8580471
الاتاحة: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/6041
https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8580471
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/joph/2020/8580471/
Rights: open access
رقم الانضمام: edsbas.1C6FBE4F
قاعدة البيانات: BASE
الوصف
تدمد:2090004X
DOI:10.1155/2020/8580471