Related Experiment Videos
Evaluation of an automated subjective refractor
James Sheedy1, Paul Schanz, Mark Bullimore
1The Ohio State University, College of Optometry, Columbus, Ohio 43218, USA. sheedy.2@osu.edu
Summary
Automated subjective refraction (ASR) using the BV-1000 showed lower repeatability and validity compared to doctor-performed refractions (DR). Calibration improved ASR visual acuity, but DR remained more repeatable.
Area of Science:
- Ophthalmology
- Optometry
- Vision Science
Background:
- Accurate refractive error correction is crucial for visual acuity.
- Automated refraction devices aim to streamline the eye examination process.
- Comparing automated subjective refraction (ASR) with traditional clinician-performed subjective refraction (DR) is essential for evaluating new technologies.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the validity and repeatability of an automated subjective refractor (ASR) against clinician-performed subjective refraction (DR).
- To compare the corrected visual acuity achieved by both ASR and DR methods.
Main Methods:
- Sixty subjects underwent automated objective refraction (AOR), ASR (Topcon BV-1000), and DR over two separate visits.
- Repeatability was assessed using 95% limits of agreement (LoA) between visits.
- Validity was determined by comparing ASR and DR measurements and their resulting visual acuities.
Main Results:
- DR and AOR demonstrated similar repeatability (95% LoA: -0.49 to +0.46 D and -0.51 to +0.45 D).
- ASR exhibited poorer repeatability (95% LoA: -0.70 to +0.71 D).
- A calibration error in the BV-1000 led to higher ASR refractions and poorer visual acuity in the right eye compared to DR.
Conclusions:
- Doctor-performed refractions (DR) are more valid and repeatable than the ASR with the BV-1000, though differences are minor.
- After calibration, the BV-1000 achieved comparable visual acuity to DR, but DR maintained superior repeatability.