Next Article in Journal
Association of Mid-Life Changes in Body Size, Body Composition and Obesity Status with the Menopausal Transition
Previous Article in Journal
Asymmetric Dimethylarginine Is a Well Established Mediating Risk Factor for Cardiovascular Morbidity and Mortality—Should Patients with Elevated Levels Be Supplemented with Citrulline?
Article Menu

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Healthcare 2016, 4(3), 41; doi:10.3390/healthcare4030041

Steps towards Smarter Solutions in Optometry and Ophthalmology—Inter-Device Agreement of Subjective Methods to Assess the Refractive Errors of the Eye

1
Institute for Ophthalmic Research, University of Tuebingen, Geschwister-Scholl-Platz, 72074 Tübingen, Germany
2
Carl Zeiss Vision International GmbH, 73430 Aalen, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Sampath Parthasarathy
Received: 23 February 2016 / Revised: 29 June 2016 / Accepted: 6 July 2016 / Published: 13 July 2016
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [1109 KB, uploaded 13 July 2016]   |  

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the inter-device agreement and mean differences between a newly developed digital phoropter and the two standard methods (trial frame and manual phoropter). Methods: Refractive errors of two groups of participants were measured by two examiners (examiner 1 (E1): 36 subjects; examiner 2 (E2): 38 subjects). Refractive errors were assessed using a trial frame, a manual phoropter and a digital phoropter. Inter-device agreement regarding the measurement of refractive errors was analyzed for differences in terms of the power vector components (spherical equivalent (SE) and the cylindrical power vector components J0 and J45) between the used methods. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC’s) were calculated to evaluate correlations between the used methods. Results: Analyzing the variances between the three methods for SE, J0 and J45 using a two-way ANOVA showed no significant differences between the methods (SE: p = 0.13, J0: p = 0.58 and J45: p = 0.96) for examiner 1 and for examiner 2 (SE: p = 0.88, J0: p = 0.95 and J45: p = 1). Mean differences and ±95% Limits of Agreement for each pair of inter-device agreement regarding the SE for both examiners were as follows: Trial frame vs. digital phoropter: +0.10 D ± 0.56 D (E1) and +0.19 D ± 0.60 D (E2), manual phoropter vs. trial frame: −0.04 D ± 0.59 D (E1) and −0.12 D ± 0.49 D (E2) and for manual vs. digital phoropter: +0.06 D ± 0.65 D (E1) and +0.08 D ± 0.45 D (E2). ICCs revealed high correlations between all methods for both examiner (p < 0.001). The time to assess the subjective refraction was significantly smaller with the digital phoropter (examiner 1: p < 0.001; examiner 2: p < 0.001). Conclusion: “All used subjective methods show a good agreement between each other terms of ICC (>0.9). Assessing refractive errors using different subjective methods, results in similar mean differences and 95% limits of agreement, when compared to those reported in studies comparing subjective refraction non-cylcoplegic retinoscopy or autorefraction”. View Full-Text
Keywords: public health; optometry; subjective refraction; refractive errors; agreement public health; optometry; subjective refraction; refractive errors; agreement
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).

Scifeed alert for new publications

Never miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
  • Get alerts for new papers matching your research
  • Find out the new papers from selected authors
  • Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
  • Define your Scifeed now

SciFeed Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Ohlendorf, A.; Leube, A.; Wahl, S. Steps towards Smarter Solutions in Optometry and Ophthalmology—Inter-Device Agreement of Subjective Methods to Assess the Refractive Errors of the Eye. Healthcare 2016, 4, 41.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Healthcare EISSN 2227-9032 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top