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

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
Healthcare 2016, 4(3), 41; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare4030041
Received: 23 February 2016 / Revised: 29 June 2016 / Accepted: 6 July 2016 / Published: 13 July 2016
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
Show Figures

Figure 1

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. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare4030041

AMA 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(3):41. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare4030041

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ohlendorf, Arne; Leube, Alexander; Wahl, Siegfried. 2016. "Steps towards Smarter Solutions in Optometry and Ophthalmology—Inter-Device Agreement of Subjective Methods to Assess the Refractive Errors of the Eye" Healthcare 4, no. 3: 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare4030041

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

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop