Evaluation of the Performance of Algorithm-Based Methods for Subjective Refraction

Objective: To evaluate the performance of two subjective refraction measurement algorithms by comparing the refraction values, visual acuity, and the time taken by the algorithms with the standard subjective refraction (SSR). Methods: The SSR and two semi-automated algorithm-based subjective refract...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE 2020-09, Vol.9 (10), p.3144
Hauptverfasser: Venkataraman, Abinaya Priya, Sirak, Delila, Brautaset, Rune, Dominguez-Vicent, Alberto
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 10
container_start_page 3144
container_title JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
container_volume 9
creator Venkataraman, Abinaya Priya
Sirak, Delila
Brautaset, Rune
Dominguez-Vicent, Alberto
description Objective: To evaluate the performance of two subjective refraction measurement algorithms by comparing the refraction values, visual acuity, and the time taken by the algorithms with the standard subjective refraction (SSR). Methods: The SSR and two semi-automated algorithm-based subjective refraction (SR1 and SR2) in-built in the Vision-R 800 phoropter were performed in 68 subjects. In SR1 and SR2, the subject’s responses were recorded in the algorithm which continuously modified the spherical and cylindrical component accordingly. The main difference between SR1 and SR2 is the use of an initial fogging step in SR1. Results: The average difference and agreement limits intervals in the spherical equivalent between each refraction method were smaller than 0.25 D, and 2.00 D, respectively. For the cylindrical components, the average difference was almost zero and the agreement limits interval was less than 0.50 D. The visual acuities were not significantly different among the methods. The times taken for SR1 and SR2 were significantly shorter, and SR2 was on average was three times faster than SSR. Conclusions: The refraction values and the visual acuity obtained with the standard subjective refraction and algorithm-based methods were similar on average. The algorithm-based methods were significantly faster than the standard method.
doi_str_mv 10.3390/jcm9103144
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_swepu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_swepub_primary_oai_swepub_ki_se_467691</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2448410552</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c401t-3a5108d6527526b3f23a41e6f82caabef662ced7a949bd2d98708863407b3f323</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kk1P3DAQhq0KVBBw6S-I1AtCCrU9jh1fkOgKSiUQiLZny3EmbJYkXuxkq_77erVbPioxlxmNn_fVjDWEfGL0FEDTLwvXa0aBCfGB7HOqVE6hhJ1X9R45inFBU5Sl4Ex9JHsAlALXap_cX6xsN9mx9UPmm2ycY3aHofGht4PDdeu8e_ChHed9_tVGrLMbHOe-jllish9TtUA3tivM7rEJ1q19DsluY7uIR9t8QH5dXvycXeXXt9--z86vcycoG3OwBaNlLQuuCi4raDhYwVA2JXfWVthIyR3Wymqhq5rXulRpAQmCqgQDhwOSb3zjb1xOlVmGtrfhj_G2NdvWY6rQCKmkZonX7_LL4OsX0T8hEwUVXApI2rONNgE91g6HMdjurcWbl6Gdmwe_MqrQWmmRDI63BsE_TRhH07fRYdfZAf0UDReiFIwWxXqvz_-hCz-FIX2lSbMwJqBgZaJONpQLPsaAzfMwjJr1ZZiXy4C_3T6rBQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2641143518</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of the Performance of Algorithm-Based Methods for Subjective Refraction</title><source>SWEPUB Freely available online</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>MDPI - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Venkataraman, Abinaya Priya ; Sirak, Delila ; Brautaset, Rune ; Dominguez-Vicent, Alberto</creator><creatorcontrib>Venkataraman, Abinaya Priya ; Sirak, Delila ; Brautaset, Rune ; Dominguez-Vicent, Alberto</creatorcontrib><description>Objective: To evaluate the performance of two subjective refraction measurement algorithms by comparing the refraction values, visual acuity, and the time taken by the algorithms with the standard subjective refraction (SSR). Methods: The SSR and two semi-automated algorithm-based subjective refraction (SR1 and SR2) in-built in the Vision-R 800 phoropter were performed in 68 subjects. In SR1 and SR2, the subject’s responses were recorded in the algorithm which continuously modified the spherical and cylindrical component accordingly. The main difference between SR1 and SR2 is the use of an initial fogging step in SR1. Results: The average difference and agreement limits intervals in the spherical equivalent between each refraction method were smaller than 0.25 D, and 2.00 D, respectively. For the cylindrical components, the average difference was almost zero and the agreement limits interval was less than 0.50 D. The visual acuities were not significantly different among the methods. The times taken for SR1 and SR2 were significantly shorter, and SR2 was on average was three times faster than SSR. Conclusions: The refraction values and the visual acuity obtained with the standard subjective refraction and algorithm-based methods were similar on average. The algorithm-based methods were significantly faster than the standard method.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2077-0383</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2077-0383</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3390/jcm9103144</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33003297</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Basel: MDPI AG</publisher><subject>Agreements ; Algorithms ; Automation ; Clinical medicine ; Medicin och hälsovetenskap ; Methods</subject><ispartof>JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2020-09, Vol.9 (10), p.3144</ispartof><rights>2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2020 by the authors. 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c401t-3a5108d6527526b3f23a41e6f82caabef662ced7a949bd2d98708863407b3f323</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c401t-3a5108d6527526b3f23a41e6f82caabef662ced7a949bd2d98708863407b3f323</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7599794/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7599794/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,552,727,780,784,885,27922,27923,53789,53791</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://kipublications.ki.se/Default.aspx?queryparsed=id:145042643$$DView record from Swedish Publication Index$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Venkataraman, Abinaya Priya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sirak, Delila</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brautaset, Rune</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dominguez-Vicent, Alberto</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of the Performance of Algorithm-Based Methods for Subjective Refraction</title><title>JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE</title><description>Objective: To evaluate the performance of two subjective refraction measurement algorithms by comparing the refraction values, visual acuity, and the time taken by the algorithms with the standard subjective refraction (SSR). Methods: The SSR and two semi-automated algorithm-based subjective refraction (SR1 and SR2) in-built in the Vision-R 800 phoropter were performed in 68 subjects. In SR1 and SR2, the subject’s responses were recorded in the algorithm which continuously modified the spherical and cylindrical component accordingly. The main difference between SR1 and SR2 is the use of an initial fogging step in SR1. Results: The average difference and agreement limits intervals in the spherical equivalent between each refraction method were smaller than 0.25 D, and 2.00 D, respectively. For the cylindrical components, the average difference was almost zero and the agreement limits interval was less than 0.50 D. The visual acuities were not significantly different among the methods. The times taken for SR1 and SR2 were significantly shorter, and SR2 was on average was three times faster than SSR. Conclusions: The refraction values and the visual acuity obtained with the standard subjective refraction and algorithm-based methods were similar on average. The algorithm-based methods were significantly faster than the standard method.</description><subject>Agreements</subject><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Automation</subject><subject>Clinical medicine</subject><subject>Medicin och hälsovetenskap</subject><subject>Methods</subject><issn>2077-0383</issn><issn>2077-0383</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>D8T</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kk1P3DAQhq0KVBBw6S-I1AtCCrU9jh1fkOgKSiUQiLZny3EmbJYkXuxkq_77erVbPioxlxmNn_fVjDWEfGL0FEDTLwvXa0aBCfGB7HOqVE6hhJ1X9R45inFBU5Sl4Ex9JHsAlALXap_cX6xsN9mx9UPmm2ycY3aHofGht4PDdeu8e_ChHed9_tVGrLMbHOe-jllish9TtUA3tivM7rEJ1q19DsluY7uIR9t8QH5dXvycXeXXt9--z86vcycoG3OwBaNlLQuuCi4raDhYwVA2JXfWVthIyR3Wymqhq5rXulRpAQmCqgQDhwOSb3zjb1xOlVmGtrfhj_G2NdvWY6rQCKmkZonX7_LL4OsX0T8hEwUVXApI2rONNgE91g6HMdjurcWbl6Gdmwe_MqrQWmmRDI63BsE_TRhH07fRYdfZAf0UDReiFIwWxXqvz_-hCz-FIX2lSbMwJqBgZaJONpQLPsaAzfMwjJr1ZZiXy4C_3T6rBQ</recordid><startdate>20200929</startdate><enddate>20200929</enddate><creator>Venkataraman, Abinaya Priya</creator><creator>Sirak, Delila</creator><creator>Brautaset, Rune</creator><creator>Dominguez-Vicent, Alberto</creator><general>MDPI AG</general><general>MDPI</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>ADTPV</scope><scope>AOWAS</scope><scope>D8T</scope><scope>ZZAVC</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20200929</creationdate><title>Evaluation of the Performance of Algorithm-Based Methods for Subjective Refraction</title><author>Venkataraman, Abinaya Priya ; Sirak, Delila ; Brautaset, Rune ; Dominguez-Vicent, Alberto</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c401t-3a5108d6527526b3f23a41e6f82caabef662ced7a949bd2d98708863407b3f323</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Agreements</topic><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Automation</topic><topic>Clinical medicine</topic><topic>Medicin och hälsovetenskap</topic><topic>Methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Venkataraman, Abinaya Priya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sirak, Delila</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brautaset, Rune</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dominguez-Vicent, Alberto</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>SwePub</collection><collection>SwePub Articles</collection><collection>SWEPUB Freely available online</collection><collection>SwePub Articles full text</collection><jtitle>JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Venkataraman, Abinaya Priya</au><au>Sirak, Delila</au><au>Brautaset, Rune</au><au>Dominguez-Vicent, Alberto</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of the Performance of Algorithm-Based Methods for Subjective Refraction</atitle><jtitle>JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE</jtitle><date>2020-09-29</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>3144</spage><pages>3144-</pages><issn>2077-0383</issn><eissn>2077-0383</eissn><abstract>Objective: To evaluate the performance of two subjective refraction measurement algorithms by comparing the refraction values, visual acuity, and the time taken by the algorithms with the standard subjective refraction (SSR). Methods: The SSR and two semi-automated algorithm-based subjective refraction (SR1 and SR2) in-built in the Vision-R 800 phoropter were performed in 68 subjects. In SR1 and SR2, the subject’s responses were recorded in the algorithm which continuously modified the spherical and cylindrical component accordingly. The main difference between SR1 and SR2 is the use of an initial fogging step in SR1. Results: The average difference and agreement limits intervals in the spherical equivalent between each refraction method were smaller than 0.25 D, and 2.00 D, respectively. For the cylindrical components, the average difference was almost zero and the agreement limits interval was less than 0.50 D. The visual acuities were not significantly different among the methods. The times taken for SR1 and SR2 were significantly shorter, and SR2 was on average was three times faster than SSR. Conclusions: The refraction values and the visual acuity obtained with the standard subjective refraction and algorithm-based methods were similar on average. The algorithm-based methods were significantly faster than the standard method.</abstract><cop>Basel</cop><pub>MDPI AG</pub><pmid>33003297</pmid><doi>10.3390/jcm9103144</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2077-0383
ispartof JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2020-09, Vol.9 (10), p.3144
issn 2077-0383
2077-0383
language eng
recordid cdi_swepub_primary_oai_swepub_ki_se_467691
source SWEPUB Freely available online; PubMed Central Open Access; MDPI - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central
subjects Agreements
Algorithms
Automation
Clinical medicine
Medicin och hälsovetenskap
Methods
title Evaluation of the Performance of Algorithm-Based Methods for Subjective Refraction
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-10T07%3A13%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_swepu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20the%20Performance%20of%20Algorithm-Based%20Methods%20for%20Subjective%20Refraction&rft.jtitle=JOURNAL%20OF%20CLINICAL%20MEDICINE&rft.au=Venkataraman,%20Abinaya%20Priya&rft.date=2020-09-29&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=3144&rft.pages=3144-&rft.issn=2077-0383&rft.eissn=2077-0383&rft_id=info:doi/10.3390/jcm9103144&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_swepu%3E2448410552%3C/proquest_swepu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2641143518&rft_id=info:pmid/33003297&rfr_iscdi=true