Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 25, 2025
Subjective Refraction Test Using a Smartphone for Vision Screening
Published on: October 18, 2024
Comparison of a Novel Binocular Refraction System with Standard Digital Phoropter Refraction
Timothy Bossie, Jennifer Reilly1, Fuensanta A Vera-Diaz1
1New England College of Optometry (NECO), Boston, Massachusetts.
Significance:
New refractive technologies are consistently emerging in the optometry market, necessitating validation against current clinical standards.
Purpose:
This study aimed to compare the refractive measurements between standard digital phoropter refraction and the Chronos binocular refraction system.
Methods:
Standardized subjective refraction was conducted on 70 adult participants using two separate refraction systems. The final subjective values from both devices were compared for M , J0 , and J45 . The time taken to complete refraction and patient's comfort were also evaluated.
Results:
Good agreement was found between the standard and Chronos refraction, with narrow mean differences (including 95% confidence intervals) and no significant bias for M (0.03 D, -0.05 to 0.11 D), J0 (-0.02 D, -0.05 to -0.01 D), and J45 (-0.01 D, -0.03 to 0.01 D). The bounds of the limits of agreement of M were -0.62 (lower bound; -0.76 to -0.49) and 0.68 (upper bound; 0.54 to 0.81), those of J0 were -0.24 (lower bound; -0.29 to -0.19) and 0.19 (upper bound; 0.15 to 0.24), and those of J45 were -0.18 (lower bound; -0.21 to -0.14) and 0.16 (upper bound; 0.12 to 0.19). No significant differences were noted between the two techniques for any of the refraction components ( M standard = -3.03 ± 2.42 D, M novel = -3.06 ± 2.37 D, z = 0.07, P = .47; J0 standard = 0.12 ± 0.40 D, J0 novel = 0.15 ± 0.41 D, z = 1.32, P = .09; J45 standard = -0.04 ± 0.19 D, J45 novel = -0.03 ± 0.19 D, z = 0.50, P = .31). The Chronos was significantly faster than the standard technique, with an average difference of 19 seconds (standard, 190 ± 44 seconds; novel, 171 ± 38 seconds; z = 4.91; P < .001).
Conclusions:
The final subjective refraction end points of the standard technique and the Chronos were well aligned in this group of adult participants, and no statistically or clinically significant differences were noted in M , J0 , or J45 components. The Chronos offered improved efficiency, meeting the demands of eye care.
