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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |