Cargando…

Evaluation of the Performance of Algorithm-Based Methods for Subjective Refraction

Objective: To evaluate the performance of two subjective refraction measurement algorithms by comparing the refraction values, visual acuity, and the time taken by the algorithms with the standard subjective refraction (SSR). Methods: The SSR and two semi-automated algorithm-based subjective refract...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Venkataraman, Abinaya Priya, Sirak, Delila, Brautaset, Rune, Dominguez-Vicent, Alberto
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7599794/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33003297
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm9103144
_version_ 1783602967934402560
author Venkataraman, Abinaya Priya
Sirak, Delila
Brautaset, Rune
Dominguez-Vicent, Alberto
author_facet Venkataraman, Abinaya Priya
Sirak, Delila
Brautaset, Rune
Dominguez-Vicent, Alberto
author_sort Venkataraman, Abinaya Priya
collection PubMed
description Objective: To evaluate the performance of two subjective refraction measurement algorithms by comparing the refraction values, visual acuity, and the time taken by the algorithms with the standard subjective refraction (SSR). Methods: The SSR and two semi-automated algorithm-based subjective refraction (SR1 and SR2) in-built in the Vision-R 800 phoropter were performed in 68 subjects. In SR1 and SR2, the subject’s responses were recorded in the algorithm which continuously modified the spherical and cylindrical component accordingly. The main difference between SR1 and SR2 is the use of an initial fogging step in SR1. Results: The average difference and agreement limits intervals in the spherical equivalent between each refraction method were smaller than 0.25 D, and 2.00 D, respectively. For the cylindrical components, the average difference was almost zero and the agreement limits interval was less than 0.50 D. The visual acuities were not significantly different among the methods. The times taken for SR1 and SR2 were significantly shorter, and SR2 was on average was three times faster than SSR. Conclusions: The refraction values and the visual acuity obtained with the standard subjective refraction and algorithm-based methods were similar on average. The algorithm-based methods were significantly faster than the standard method.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7599794
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75997942020-11-01 Evaluation of the Performance of Algorithm-Based Methods for Subjective Refraction Venkataraman, Abinaya Priya Sirak, Delila Brautaset, Rune Dominguez-Vicent, Alberto J Clin Med Article Objective: To evaluate the performance of two subjective refraction measurement algorithms by comparing the refraction values, visual acuity, and the time taken by the algorithms with the standard subjective refraction (SSR). Methods: The SSR and two semi-automated algorithm-based subjective refraction (SR1 and SR2) in-built in the Vision-R 800 phoropter were performed in 68 subjects. In SR1 and SR2, the subject’s responses were recorded in the algorithm which continuously modified the spherical and cylindrical component accordingly. The main difference between SR1 and SR2 is the use of an initial fogging step in SR1. Results: The average difference and agreement limits intervals in the spherical equivalent between each refraction method were smaller than 0.25 D, and 2.00 D, respectively. For the cylindrical components, the average difference was almost zero and the agreement limits interval was less than 0.50 D. The visual acuities were not significantly different among the methods. The times taken for SR1 and SR2 were significantly shorter, and SR2 was on average was three times faster than SSR. Conclusions: The refraction values and the visual acuity obtained with the standard subjective refraction and algorithm-based methods were similar on average. The algorithm-based methods were significantly faster than the standard method. MDPI 2020-09-29 /pmc/articles/PMC7599794/ /pubmed/33003297 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm9103144 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Venkataraman, Abinaya Priya
Sirak, Delila
Brautaset, Rune
Dominguez-Vicent, Alberto
Evaluation of the Performance of Algorithm-Based Methods for Subjective Refraction
title Evaluation of the Performance of Algorithm-Based Methods for Subjective Refraction
title_full Evaluation of the Performance of Algorithm-Based Methods for Subjective Refraction
title_fullStr Evaluation of the Performance of Algorithm-Based Methods for Subjective Refraction
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of the Performance of Algorithm-Based Methods for Subjective Refraction
title_short Evaluation of the Performance of Algorithm-Based Methods for Subjective Refraction
title_sort evaluation of the performance of algorithm-based methods for subjective refraction
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7599794/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33003297
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm9103144
work_keys_str_mv AT venkataramanabinayapriya evaluationoftheperformanceofalgorithmbasedmethodsforsubjectiverefraction
AT sirakdelila evaluationoftheperformanceofalgorithmbasedmethodsforsubjectiverefraction
AT brautasetrune evaluationoftheperformanceofalgorithmbasedmethodsforsubjectiverefraction
AT dominguezvicentalberto evaluationoftheperformanceofalgorithmbasedmethodsforsubjectiverefraction