Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 17, 2025
Subjective Refraction Test Using a Smartphone for Vision Screening
Published on: October 18, 2024
COMPARISON OF SMARTPHONE-BASED AND AUTOMATED REFRACTION WITH SUBJECTIVE REFRACTION FOR SCREENING OF REFRACTIVE ERRORS
1University of Malaya Eye Research Centre, Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Purpose:
To compare Netra smartphone-based and automated refraction with subjective refraction for screening of refractive errors.
Methods:
Cross-sectional study at the University of Malaya Medical Centre, Kuala Lumpur. Subjects underwent subjective refraction, then automated refraction, and finally Netra smartphone-based refraction. All results were converted to power vectors (M, J0 and J45) and were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA and Bland-Altman plots. Sensitivity and specificity were determined. The best cut-off points were determined from ROC curve analysis. P < .05 was considered statistically significant.
Results:
Data from the right eyes of 204 subjects were analysed. Mean age was 36.6 ± 15.7 years (range 16-78 years). Spherical equivalent [mean (95% CI)] from Netra and automated refraction were similar, and both more myopic than subjective refraction; -2.87 (-3.23 to -2.51), -2.85 (-3.21 to -2.49) and -2.46 (-2.83 to -2.10) respectively (p < .001). Differences in J0 and J45 between Netra and subjective refraction were not statistically significant (0.10 vs 0.11 and 0.01 vs -0.02 respectively, both p > .05), but those between automated and subjective refraction were (0.06 vs 0.11 and 0.07 vs -0.02, p = .004 and p < .001 respectively). Bland Altman plots showed the 95% limits of agreement with Netra refraction were wider than with automated refraction (-2.21D to 1.42D vs. -1.90D to 1.16D respectively).
Conclusion:
Netra smartphone-based refraction gives similar readings to automated refraction, and both show myopic overestimation when compared to subjective refraction. However, due to non-insignificant practical usage issues, its use as a screening tool for refractive errors is limited.
