Scholarlink

<p>Refractive errors are the leading cause of preventable visual impairment, to which web-based remote refraction could contribute. We report real-world 2021–2022 data of the underlying algorithm and validated these to conventional prescriptions among healthy individuals (high visual acuity and satisfactied current refraction). Participants were 18–45 years with a spherical (S) error between −3.50 + 2.00S to −2.00 Diopter Cylinder (DC), reported as Spherical Equivalent (SEQ) in mean differences and 95% Limits of agreement. Consecutive measurements (<i>n</i> = 14,680) were assessed of which <i>n</i> = 6386 selected for validation. The mean difference was 0.01D(SD 0.69) and −0.73D(SD 0.92) for myopes and hyperopes respectively. This algorithm shows variation, nonetheless, 67% and 82% of myopes were within ±0.5 and ±0.75D. The test underestimates hyperopes (34% and 50% within ±0.5D and ±0.75D) and had inconsistencies distinguishing hyperopia. This proof-of-concept shows home testing has the potency to increase accessibility to care by delivering a valuable alternative for uncomplicated refractive assessments.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Real world data on digital remote refraction in a healthy population of 14,680 eyes

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年2月6日

查看全文
  • Casper van der Zee,
  • Heshow Jamal,
  • Marc Muijzer,
  • Laurence Frank,
  • Gerko Vink,
  • Robert Wisse

摘要

Refractive errors are the leading cause of preventable visual impairment, to which web-based remote refraction could contribute. We report real-world 2021–2022 data of the underlying algorithm and validated these to conventional prescriptions among healthy individuals (high visual acuity and satisfactied current refraction). Participants were 18–45 years with a spherical (S) error between −3.50 + 2.00S to −2.00 Diopter Cylinder (DC), reported as Spherical Equivalent (SEQ) in mean differences and 95% Limits of agreement. Consecutive measurements (n = 14,680) were assessed of which n = 6386 selected for validation. The mean difference was 0.01D(SD 0.69) and −0.73D(SD 0.92) for myopes and hyperopes respectively. This algorithm shows variation, nonetheless, 67% and 82% of myopes were within ±0.5 and ±0.75D. The test underestimates hyperopes (34% and 50% within ±0.5D and ±0.75D) and had inconsistencies distinguishing hyperopia. This proof-of-concept shows home testing has the potency to increase accessibility to care by delivering a valuable alternative for uncomplicated refractive assessments.