Repeatability and reproducibility of manifest refraction.
Journal
Journal of cataract and refractive surgery
ISSN: 1873-4502
Titre abrégé: J Cataract Refract Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8604171
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2020
Dec 2020
Historique:
entrez:
1
12
2020
pubmed:
2
12
2020
medline:
13
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate the intraexaminer repeatability and the interobserver reproducibility of manifest refraction. Tertiary referral center. Retrospective study. Patients attending at least 2 preoperative refractions before undergoing subsequent refractive surgery were included. All manifest refractions were performed by 1 of 4 experienced optometrists using an automated phoropter according to a standard protocol. The first manifest refraction was performed after obtaining automated refraction and measuring the spectacles of the patient. The second refraction was typically refined from the first also considering wavefront refraction and tomography/topography. The latest 2 manifest refractions of 1000 eyes obtained at 2 separate visits showed a mean pairwise absolute difference of 0.16 ± 0.19 diopter (D) (range 0 to 1.38 D) in spherical equivalent (SE). This SD was better than 0.25 D (the minimum measurement increment of refraction itself). The 95% limit of agreement (LoA) was within 0.50 D for sphere, cylinder, and SE. The SD of the astigmatism axis was approximately 10 degrees, and the 95% LoA was within 22 degrees (the difference in axis decreasing significantly with the measured cylinder magnitude). The SD for corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was half a Snellen line and the 95% LoA was within 1.5 lines (with increasing deviation with worse vision). There were no clinically meaningful differences in reproducibility (2 optometrists) compared with repeatability (same optometrist) in sphere, axis, and CDVA. Reproducibility was 0.16 D irrespective whether refractions were performed by 1 or 2 different optometrists. Obtaining multiple refractions preoperatively might increase the predictability of surgery and decrease the enhancement rate.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33259390
doi: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000343
pii: 02158034-202012000-00013
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1659-1666Références
Smith G. Refraction and visual acuity measurements: what are their measurement uncertainties? Clin Exp Optom 2006;89:66–72
ISO 13666:2019(en): Ophthalmic optics—Spectacle lenses—Vocabulary. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:13666:ed-3:v1:en. Accessed March 31, 2020
Piñero DP, López-Navarro A, Cabezos I, de Fez D, Caballero MT, Camps VJ. Intrasession repeatability of refractive and ocular aberrometric measurements obtained using a multidiagnostic device in healthy eyes. Clin Optom 2017;9:91–96
Perches S, Collados MV, Ares J. Repeatability and reproducibility of virtual subjective refraction. Optom Vis Sci 2016;93:1243–1253
Mrochen M, Hafezi F, Iseli HP, Löffler J, Seiler T. Verbesserung der refraktiven Ergebnisse durch Nomogramme. Der Ophthalmol 2006;103:331–339
Yang SH, Van Gelder RN, Pepose JS. Neural network computer program to determine photorefractive keratectomy nomograms. J Cataract Refract Surg 1998;24:917–924
St Clair RM, Sharma A, Huang D, Yu F, Goldich Y, Rootman D, Yoo S, Cabot F, Jun J, Zhang L, Aldave AJ. Development of a nomogram for femtosecond laser astigmatic keratotomy for astigmatism after keratoplasty. J Cataract Refract Surg 2016;42:556–562
Allan BD, Hassan H, Ieong A. Multiple regression analysis in nomogram development for myopic wavefront laser in situ keratomileusis: improving astigmatic outcomes. J Cataract Refract Surg 2015;41:1009–1017
Liyanage SE, Allan BD. Multiple regression analysis in myopic wavefront laser in situ keratomileusis nomogram development. J Cataract Refract Surg 2012;38:1232–1239
Montés-Micó R, Cerviño A, Ferrer-Blasco T, García-Lázaro S, Ortí-Navarro S. Optical quality after instillation of eyedrops in dry-eye syndrome. J Cataract Refract Surg 2010;36:935–940
Montés-Micó R, Cáliz A, Alió JL. Wavefront analysis of higher order aberrations in dry eye patients. J Refract Surg 2004;20:243–247
Epitropoulos AT, Matossian C, Berdy GJ, Malhotra RP, Potvin R. Effect of tear osmolarity on repeatability of keratometry for cataract surgery planning. J Cataract Refract Surg 2015;41:1672–1677
Çakır B, Doğan E, Çelik E, Babashli T, Uçak T, Alagöz G. Effects of artificial tear treatment on corneal epithelial thickness and corneal topography findings in dry eye patients. J Fr Ophtalmol 2018;41:407–411
Chen AH, Ahmad A, Kearney S, Strang N. The influence of age, refractive error, visual demand and lighting conditions on accommodative ability in Malay children and adults. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2019;257:1997–2004
Taneri S, Oehler S, Azar DT. Influence of mydriatic eye drops on wavefront sensing with the Zywave aberrometer. J Refract Surg 2011;27:678–685
Michael R, Pareja-Aricò L, Rauscher FG, Barraquer RI. Cortical cataract and refractive error. Ophthalmic Res 2019;62:157–165
MacKenzie GE. Reproducibility of sphero-cylindrical prescriptions. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2008;28:143–150
Rosenfield M, Chiu NN. Repeatability of subjective and objective refraction. Optom Vis Sci 1995;72:577–579
Raasch TW, Schechtman KB, Davis LJ, Zadnik K; CLEK Study Group. Collaborative Longitudinal Evaluation of Keratoconus Study. Repeatability of subjective refraction in myopic and keratoconic subjects: results of vector analysis. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2001;21:376–383
Shah R, Edgar DF, Rabbetts R, Harle DE, Evans BJW. Standardized patient methodology to assess refractive error reproducibility. Optom Vis Sci 2009;86:517–528
Reinstein DZ, Yap TE, Carp GI, Archer TJ, Gobbe M, London Vision Clinic optometric group. Reproducibility of manifest refraction between surgeons and optometrists in a clinical refractive surgery practice. J Cat Refract Surg 2014;40:450–459