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