Comparison between refraction measured by Spot Vision ScreeningTM and subjective clinical refractometry

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of Spot Vision ScreeningTM as an autorefractor by comparing refraction measurements to subjective clinical refractometry results in children and adult patients. METHODS: One-hundred and thirty-four eyes of 134 patients were submitted...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Daniela Lima de Jesus, Flávio Fernandes Villela, Luis Fernando Orlandin, Fernando Naves Eiji, Daniel Oliveira Dantas, Milton Ruiz Alves
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Faculdade de Medicina / USP 2016-02-01
Series:Clinics
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1807-59322016000200069&lng=en&tlng=en
id doaj-fff3e238b9714f7ea6e3c087d522d455
record_format Article
spelling doaj-fff3e238b9714f7ea6e3c087d522d4552020-11-24T23:13:50ZengFaculdade de Medicina / USPClinics1980-53222016-02-01712697210.6061/clinics/2016(02)03S1807-59322016000200069Comparison between refraction measured by Spot Vision ScreeningTM and subjective clinical refractometryDaniela Lima de JesusFlávio Fernandes VillelaLuis Fernando OrlandinFernando Naves EijiDaniel Oliveira DantasMilton Ruiz AlvesOBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of Spot Vision ScreeningTM as an autorefractor by comparing refraction measurements to subjective clinical refractometry results in children and adult patients. METHODS: One-hundred and thirty-four eyes of 134 patients were submitted to refractometry by Spot and clinical refractometry under cycloplegia. Patients, students, physicians, staff and children of staff from the Hospital das Clínicas (School of Medicine, University of São Paulo) aged 7-50 years without signs of ocular disease were examined. Only right-eye refraction data were analyzed. The findings were converted in magnitude vectors for analysis. RESULTS: The difference between Spot Vision ScreeningTM and subjective clinical refractometry expressed in spherical equivalents was +0.66±0.56 diopters (D), +0.16±0.27 D for the vector projected on the 90 axis and +0.02±0.15 D for the oblique vector. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the statistical significance of the difference between the two methods, we consider the difference non-relevant in a clinical setting, supporting the use of Spot Vision ScreeningTM as an ancillary method for estimating refraction.http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1807-59322016000200069&lng=en&tlng=enRefractionOcularEquipment DesignComparative Study
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Daniela Lima de Jesus
Flávio Fernandes Villela
Luis Fernando Orlandin
Fernando Naves Eiji
Daniel Oliveira Dantas
Milton Ruiz Alves
spellingShingle Daniela Lima de Jesus
Flávio Fernandes Villela
Luis Fernando Orlandin
Fernando Naves Eiji
Daniel Oliveira Dantas
Milton Ruiz Alves
Comparison between refraction measured by Spot Vision ScreeningTM and subjective clinical refractometry
Clinics
Refraction
Ocular
Equipment Design
Comparative Study
author_facet Daniela Lima de Jesus
Flávio Fernandes Villela
Luis Fernando Orlandin
Fernando Naves Eiji
Daniel Oliveira Dantas
Milton Ruiz Alves
author_sort Daniela Lima de Jesus
title Comparison between refraction measured by Spot Vision ScreeningTM and subjective clinical refractometry
title_short Comparison between refraction measured by Spot Vision ScreeningTM and subjective clinical refractometry
title_full Comparison between refraction measured by Spot Vision ScreeningTM and subjective clinical refractometry
title_fullStr Comparison between refraction measured by Spot Vision ScreeningTM and subjective clinical refractometry
title_full_unstemmed Comparison between refraction measured by Spot Vision ScreeningTM and subjective clinical refractometry
title_sort comparison between refraction measured by spot vision screeningtm and subjective clinical refractometry
publisher Faculdade de Medicina / USP
series Clinics
issn 1980-5322
publishDate 2016-02-01
description OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of Spot Vision ScreeningTM as an autorefractor by comparing refraction measurements to subjective clinical refractometry results in children and adult patients. METHODS: One-hundred and thirty-four eyes of 134 patients were submitted to refractometry by Spot and clinical refractometry under cycloplegia. Patients, students, physicians, staff and children of staff from the Hospital das Clínicas (School of Medicine, University of São Paulo) aged 7-50 years without signs of ocular disease were examined. Only right-eye refraction data were analyzed. The findings were converted in magnitude vectors for analysis. RESULTS: The difference between Spot Vision ScreeningTM and subjective clinical refractometry expressed in spherical equivalents was +0.66±0.56 diopters (D), +0.16±0.27 D for the vector projected on the 90 axis and +0.02±0.15 D for the oblique vector. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the statistical significance of the difference between the two methods, we consider the difference non-relevant in a clinical setting, supporting the use of Spot Vision ScreeningTM as an ancillary method for estimating refraction.
topic Refraction
Ocular
Equipment Design
Comparative Study
url http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1807-59322016000200069&lng=en&tlng=en
work_keys_str_mv AT danielalimadejesus comparisonbetweenrefractionmeasuredbyspotvisionscreeningtmandsubjectiveclinicalrefractometry
AT flaviofernandesvillela comparisonbetweenrefractionmeasuredbyspotvisionscreeningtmandsubjectiveclinicalrefractometry
AT luisfernandoorlandin comparisonbetweenrefractionmeasuredbyspotvisionscreeningtmandsubjectiveclinicalrefractometry
AT fernandonaveseiji comparisonbetweenrefractionmeasuredbyspotvisionscreeningtmandsubjectiveclinicalrefractometry
AT danieloliveiradantas comparisonbetweenrefractionmeasuredbyspotvisionscreeningtmandsubjectiveclinicalrefractometry
AT miltonruizalves comparisonbetweenrefractionmeasuredbyspotvisionscreeningtmandsubjectiveclinicalrefractometry
_version_ 1725596509027696640