Clinical Evaluation Of a 0.05 D-step Binocular Wavefront Optometer in Young Adults in China

References

• Holden BA, Fricke TR, Wilson DA et al. Global prevalence of myopia and high myopia and temporal trends from 2000 through 2050. Ophthalmology 2016; 123: 1036–1042. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.01.006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan IG, Iribarren R, Fotouhi A et al. Cycloplegic refraction is the gold standard for epidemiological studies. Acta Ophthalmol 2015; 93: 581–585. doi:10.1111/aos.12642.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies LN, Mallen EA, Wolffsohn JS et al. Clinical evaluation of the Shin-Nippon NVision-K 5001/Grand Seiko WR-5100K autorefractor. Optom Vis Sci 2003; 80: 320–324. doi:10.1097/00006324-200304000-00011.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dominguez-Vicent A, Al-Soboh L, Brautaset R et al. Effect of instrument design and technique on the precision and accuracy of objective refraction measurement. J Clin Med 2020; 9. doi:10.3390/jcm9103061.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lebow KA, Campbell CE. A comparison of a traditional and wavefront autorefraction. Optom Vis Sci 2014; 91: 1191–1198. doi:10.1097/OPX.0000000000000378.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choong YF, Chen AH, Goh PP. A comparison of autorefraction and subjective refraction with and without cycloplegia in primary school children. Am J Ophthalmol 2006; 142: 68–74. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2006.01.084.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernandez EJ, Manzanera S, Piers P et al. Adaptive optics visual simulator. J Refract Surg 2002; 18: S634–638. doi:10.3928/1081-597X-20020901-27.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beverage JL, Schwiegerling J. A Shack-Hartmann-based autorefractor. J Refract Surg 2006; 22: 932–937. doi:10.3928/1081-597X-20061101-19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marin G, Meslin D. Refraction: patients are sensitive to increments smaller than a quarter diopter! Points de Vue Int Rev of Ophthalmic Optics 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Yi Z, Jie G, Kai C et al. Theoretical derivation and clinical validation of the resolution limit of human eye to spherical lens change: a self-controlled study. Int Ophthalmol 2022. doi:10.1007/s10792-022-02538-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hashemi H, Khabazkhoob M, Asharlous A et al. Cycloplegic autorefraction versus subjective refraction: the Tehran eye study. Br J Ophthalmol 2016; 100: 1122–1127. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2015-307871.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pei R, Liu Z, Rong H et al. A randomized clinical trial using cyclopentolate and tropicamide to compare cycloplegic refraction in Chinese young adults with dark irises. BMC Ophthalmol 2021; 21. doi:10.1186/s12886-021-02001-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McAlinden C, Khadka J, Pesudovs K. Statistical methods for conducting agreement (comparison of clinical tests) and precision (repeatability or reproducibility) studies in optometry and ophthalmology. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2011; 31: 330–338. doi:10.1111/j.1475-1313.2011.00851.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaki R, Bulgiba A, Ismail R et al. Statistical methods used to test for agreement of medical instruments measuring continuous variables in method comparison studies: a systematic review. Plos One 2012; 7: e37908. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037908.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paudel N, Adhikari S, Thakur A et al. Clinical accuracy of the Nidek ARK-1 autorefractor. Optom Vis Sci 2019; 96: 407–413. doi:10.1097/OPX.0000000000001386.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wesemann W, Dick B. Accuracy and accommodation capability of a handheld autorefractor. J Cataract Refract Surg 2000; 26: 62–70. doi:10.1016/S0886-3350(99)00325-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson HA, Hentz G, Glasser A et al. Minus-lens-stimulated accommodative amplitude decreases sigmoidally with age: a study of objectively measured accommodative amplitudes from age 3. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008; 49: 2919–2926. doi:10.1167/iovs.07-1492.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guha S, Shah S, Shah K et al. A comparison of cycloplegic autorefraction and retinoscopy in Indian children. Clin Exp Optom 2017; 100: 73–78. doi:10.1111/cxo.12375.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenfield M, Chiu NN. Repeatability of subjective and objective refraction. Optom Vis Sci 1995; 72: 577–579. doi:10.1097/00006324-199508000-00007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Otero C, Vilaseca M, Arjona M et al. Comparison of the adaptive optics vision analyzer and the KR-1 w for measuring ocular wave aberrations. Clin Exp Optom 2017; 100: 26–32. doi:10.1111/cxo.12413.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng X, Himebaugh NL, Kollbaum PS et al. Test-retest reliability of clinical Shack-Hartmann measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004; 45: 351–360. doi:10.1167/iovs.03-0265.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guirao A, Williams DR, Cox IG. Effect of rotation and translation on the expected benefit of an ideal method to correct the eye’s higher-order aberrations. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis 2001; 18: 1003–1015. doi:10.1364/JOSAA.18.001003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ortiz-Toquero S, Rodriguez G, de Juan V et al. Repeatability of wavefront aberration measurements with a placido-based topographer in normal and Keratoconic Eyes. J Refract Surg 2016; 32: 338–344. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20160121-04.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar