Accuracy and precision of automated subjective refraction in young hyperopes under cycloplegia

Purpose: To assess the agreement between the Eye Refract, an instrument to perform subjective automated refraction, and the traditional subjective refraction, as the gold standard, in young hyperopes under noncycloplegic and cycloplegic conditions. Methods: A cross-section and randomized study was carried out, involving 42 participants (18.2 ± 7.7 years, range 6 to 31 years). Only one eye was chosen for the analysis, randomly. An optometrist conducted the refraction with the Eye Refract, while another different optometrist conducted the traditional subjective refraction. Spherical equivalent (M), cylindrical components (J0 and J45), and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) were compared between both refraction methods under noncycloplegic and cycloplegic conditions. A Bland-Altman analysis was performed to assess the agreement (accuracy and precision) between both refraction methods. Results: Without cycloplegia, the Eye Refract showed significantly lower values of hyperopia than the traditional subjective refraction (p < 0.009), the mean difference (accuracy) and its 95% limits of agreement (precision) being -0.31 (+0.85, -1.47) D. Conversely, there were no statistical differences between both refraction methods under cycloplegic conditions (p ≥ 0.05). Regarding J0 and J45, both refraction methods manifested no significant differences between them under noncycloplegic and cycloplegic conditions (p ≥ 0.05). Finally, the Eye Refract significantly improved CDVA (0.04 ± 0.01 logMAR) compared with the traditional subjective refraction without cycloplegia (p = 0.01). Conclusions: The Eye Refract is presented as a useful instrument to determine the refractive error in young hyperopes, the use of cycloplegia being necessary to obtain accurate and precise spherical refraction. (AU)

Accuracy and precision of automated subjective refraction in young hyperopes under cycloplegia.

PURPOSE: To assess the agreement between the Eye Refract, an instrument to perform subjective automated refraction, and the traditional subjective refraction, as the gold standard, in young hyperopes under noncycloplegic and cycloplegic conditions. METHODS: A cross-section and randomized study was carried out, involving 42 participants (18.2 ± 7.7 years, range 6 to 31 years). Only one eye was chosen for the analysis, randomly. An optometrist conducted the refraction with the Eye Refract, while another different optometrist conducted the traditional subjective refraction. Spherical equivalent (M), cylindrical components (J0 and J45), and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) were compared between both refraction methods under noncycloplegic and cycloplegic conditions. A Bland-Altman analysis was performed to assess the agreement (accuracy and precision) between both refraction methods. RESULTS: Without cycloplegia, the Eye Refract showed significantly lower values of hyperopia than the traditional subjective refraction (p < 0.009), the mean difference (accuracy) and its 95% limits of agreement (precision) being -0.31 (+0.85, -1.47) D. Conversely, there were no statistical differences between both refraction methods under cycloplegic conditions (p ≥ 0.05). Regarding J0 and J45, both refraction methods manifested no significant differences between them under noncycloplegic and cycloplegic conditions (p ≥ 0.05). Finally, the Eye Refract significantly improved CDVA (0.04 ± 0.01 logMAR) compared with the traditional subjective refraction without cycloplegia (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The Eye Refract is presented as a useful instrument to determine the refractive error in young hyperopes, the use of cycloplegia being necessary to obtain accurate and precise spherical refraction.

A Comparison between Automated Subjective Refraction and Traditional Subjective Refraction in Keratoconus Patients.

SIGNIFICANCE: The performance of the Eye Refract (Luneau Technology, Chartres, France), a new instrument to perform aberrometry-based automated subjective refraction, has been previously evaluated in healthy subjects. However, its clinical implications in other ocular conditions are still unknown. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the agreement between the Eye Refract and the traditional subjective refraction, as the criterion standard, in keratoconus patients with and without intracorneal ring segments (ICRSs). METHODS: A total of 50 eyes of 50 keratoconus patients were evaluated, dividing the sample into 2 groups: 27 eyes without ICRS (37.78 ± 9.35 years) and 23 eyes with ICRS (39.26 ± 13.62 years). An optometrist conducted the refraction with the Eye Refract, and another different optometrist conducted the traditional subjective refraction on the same day. Spherical equivalent (M), cylindrical vectors (J0 and J45), and corrected distance visual acuity were compared between both methods of refraction. In addition, Bland-Altman analysis was performed to assess the agreement between both methods of refraction. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences (P ≥ .05) between the Eye Refract and the traditional subjective refraction for all the variables under study in either group. Without ICRS, the mean difference and 95% limits of agreement (upper, lower) were -0.20 (+1.50, -1.89) D for M, -0.14 (+1.40, -1.68) D for J0, and +0.05 (+1.23, -1.14) D for J45. With ICRS, these values worsened to -0.62 (+3.89, -5.12) D for M, +0.06 (+2.46, -2.34) D for J0, and -0.02 (+2.23, -2.28) D for J45. CONCLUSIONS: The Eye Refract seems to offer similar results compared with the traditional subjective refraction in keratoconus patients not implanted with ICRS. However, some patients could show abnormal measurements, especially those with ICRS, who should be treated with caution in clinical practice.