Cargando…

Comparison between refraction measured by Spot Vision Screening(TM) and subjective clinical refractometry

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of Spot Vision Screening(TM) as an autorefractor by comparing refraction measurements to subjective clinical refractometry results in children and adult patients. METHODS: One-hundred and thirty-four eyes of 134 patients were submitte...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: de Jesus, Daniela Lima, Villela, Flávio Fernandes, Orlandin, Luis Fernando, Eiji, Fernando Naves, Dantas, Daniel Oliveira, Alves, Milton Ruiz
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4760365/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26934234
http://dx.doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2016(02)03
_version_ 1782416862660788224
author de Jesus, Daniela Lima
Villela, Flávio Fernandes
Orlandin, Luis Fernando
Eiji, Fernando Naves
Dantas, Daniel Oliveira
Alves, Milton Ruiz
author_facet de Jesus, Daniela Lima
Villela, Flávio Fernandes
Orlandin, Luis Fernando
Eiji, Fernando Naves
Dantas, Daniel Oliveira
Alves, Milton Ruiz
author_sort de Jesus, Daniela Lima
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of Spot Vision Screening(TM) as an autorefractor by comparing refraction measurements to subjective clinical refractometry results in children and adult patients. METHODS: One-hundred and thirty-four eyes of 134 patients were submitted to refractometry by Spot and clinical refractometry under cycloplegia. Patients, students, physicians, staff and children of staff from the Hospital das Clínicas (School of Medicine, University of São Paulo) aged 7-50 years without signs of ocular disease were examined. Only right-eye refraction data were analyzed. The findings were converted in magnitude vectors for analysis. RESULTS: The difference between Spot Vision Screening(TM) and subjective clinical refractometry expressed in spherical equivalents was +0.66±0.56 diopters (D), +0.16±0.27 D for the vector projected on the 90 axis and +0.02±0.15 D for the oblique vector. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the statistical significance of the difference between the two methods, we consider the difference non-relevant in a clinical setting, supporting the use of Spot Vision Screening(TM) as an ancillary method for estimating refraction.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4760365
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47603652016-02-25 Comparison between refraction measured by Spot Vision Screening(TM) and subjective clinical refractometry de Jesus, Daniela Lima Villela, Flávio Fernandes Orlandin, Luis Fernando Eiji, Fernando Naves Dantas, Daniel Oliveira Alves, Milton Ruiz Clinics (Sao Paulo) Clinical Science OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of Spot Vision Screening(TM) as an autorefractor by comparing refraction measurements to subjective clinical refractometry results in children and adult patients. METHODS: One-hundred and thirty-four eyes of 134 patients were submitted to refractometry by Spot and clinical refractometry under cycloplegia. Patients, students, physicians, staff and children of staff from the Hospital das Clínicas (School of Medicine, University of São Paulo) aged 7-50 years without signs of ocular disease were examined. Only right-eye refraction data were analyzed. The findings were converted in magnitude vectors for analysis. RESULTS: The difference between Spot Vision Screening(TM) and subjective clinical refractometry expressed in spherical equivalents was +0.66±0.56 diopters (D), +0.16±0.27 D for the vector projected on the 90 axis and +0.02±0.15 D for the oblique vector. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the statistical significance of the difference between the two methods, we consider the difference non-relevant in a clinical setting, supporting the use of Spot Vision Screening(TM) as an ancillary method for estimating refraction. Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo 2016-02 2016-02 /pmc/articles/PMC4760365/ /pubmed/26934234 http://dx.doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2016(02)03 Text en Copyright © 2016 Hospital das Clínicas da FMUSP http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Science
de Jesus, Daniela Lima
Villela, Flávio Fernandes
Orlandin, Luis Fernando
Eiji, Fernando Naves
Dantas, Daniel Oliveira
Alves, Milton Ruiz
Comparison between refraction measured by Spot Vision Screening(TM) and subjective clinical refractometry
title Comparison between refraction measured by Spot Vision Screening(TM) and subjective clinical refractometry
title_full Comparison between refraction measured by Spot Vision Screening(TM) and subjective clinical refractometry
title_fullStr Comparison between refraction measured by Spot Vision Screening(TM) and subjective clinical refractometry
title_full_unstemmed Comparison between refraction measured by Spot Vision Screening(TM) and subjective clinical refractometry
title_short Comparison between refraction measured by Spot Vision Screening(TM) and subjective clinical refractometry
title_sort comparison between refraction measured by spot vision screening(tm) and subjective clinical refractometry
topic Clinical Science
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4760365/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26934234
http://dx.doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2016(02)03
work_keys_str_mv AT dejesusdanielalima comparisonbetweenrefractionmeasuredbyspotvisionscreeningtmandsubjectiveclinicalrefractometry
AT villelaflaviofernandes comparisonbetweenrefractionmeasuredbyspotvisionscreeningtmandsubjectiveclinicalrefractometry
AT orlandinluisfernando comparisonbetweenrefractionmeasuredbyspotvisionscreeningtmandsubjectiveclinicalrefractometry
AT eijifernandonaves comparisonbetweenrefractionmeasuredbyspotvisionscreeningtmandsubjectiveclinicalrefractometry
AT dantasdanieloliveira comparisonbetweenrefractionmeasuredbyspotvisionscreeningtmandsubjectiveclinicalrefractometry
AT alvesmiltonruiz comparisonbetweenrefractionmeasuredbyspotvisionscreeningtmandsubjectiveclinicalrefractometry