Comparing the Netra smartphone refractor to subjective refraction

REFERENCES

• Bourne RRA, Flaxman SR, Braithwaite T et al. Magnitude, temporal trends, and projections of the global prevalence of blindness and distance and near vision impairment: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Lancet Glob Health 2017; 5: e888–e897.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnikoff S, Pascolini D, Mariotti SP et al. Global magnitude of visual impairment caused by uncorrected refractive errors in 2004. Bull World Health Organ 2008; 86: 63–70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rathi S, Tsui E, Mehta N et al. The current state of teleophthalmology in the United States. Ophthalmology 2017; 124: 1729–1734.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohammadpour M, Heidari Z, Mirghorbani M et al. Smartphones, tele‐ophthalmology, and VISION 2020. Int J Ophthalmol 2017; 10: 1909–1918.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pamplona V, Raskar R. Methods and Apparatus for Eye Relaxation. United States Patent and Trademark Office. Patent number PCT/US2013/051412. [Cited 2019 Mar 22]. Available at: https://www.uspto.gov/.
   Google Scholar
• EyeNetra: Self‐test Refraction Tool Powered by a Smartphone. Netra. [Cited 2018 Sept 18]. Available at: https://eyenetra.com/product-netra.html.
   Google Scholar
• Pamplona VF, Turpin S, Cuadros J et al. Validation of confidence levels for a cell phone‐based refractor (NETRA‐G). Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2015; 56: 2211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pamplona VF, Kartik J, Bharadwaj S et al. Identification and comparison of critical axis combinations for estimating the refractive power of the eye using NETRA. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2014; 55: 2723.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lang MP, Pakter HM, Ferreira LB et al. Comparison of a Cell Phone‐Based Refraction Technique (NETRA) with auto‐refraction. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012; 53: 3596.
   Google Scholar
• Pesala V, Srinivasan S, Solomon E et al. Comparison of a novel cell phone‐based refraction technique (NETRA) with objective clinical retinoscopy. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011; 52: 2852.
   Google Scholar
• Solaka N, Modi R, Gaiser H et al. Comparison of a new prototype of netra‐g cell phone‐based refraction with subjective refraction. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2014; 55: 2722.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaiser H, Moore B, Pamplona V et al. Comparison of a novel cell phone‐based refraction technique (Netra‐G) with subjective refraction. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013; 54: 2340.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett JR, Stalboerger GM, Hodge DO et al. Comparison of refractive assessment by wavefront aberrometry, autorefraction, and subjective refraction. J Optom 2015; 8: 109–115.
   Google Scholar
• Bullimore MA, Fusaro RE, Adams CW. The repeatability of automated and clinician refraction. Optom Vis Sci 1998; 75: 617–622.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mcginnigle S, Naroo SA, Eperjesi F. Evaluation of the auto‐refraction function of the Nidek OPD‐Scan III. Clin Exp Optom 2014; 97: 160–163.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mallen EA, Wolffsohn JS, Gilmartin B et al. Clinical evaluation of the Shin‐Nippon SRW‐5000 autorefractor in adults. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2001; 21: 101–107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciuffreda KJ, Rosenfield M. Evaluation of the SVOne: a handheld, smartphone‐based autorefractor. Optom Vis Sci 2015; 92: 1133–1139.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elliott DB. Clinical Procedures in Primary Eye Care, 4th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders/Elsevier, 2014. pp. 104–127.
   Google Scholar
• Visual acuity ‐ Standardized Operating Procedures. Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging. 2014. [Cited 2019 Mar 22]. Available at: https://www.clsa-elcv.ca/doc/1111.
   Google Scholar
• Alderson AJ, Green A, Whitaker D et al. A comparison of spectacles purchased online and in UK Optometry Practice. Optom Vis Sci 2016; 93: 1196–1202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pesudovs KGE, Elliott DB. The quality of life impact of refractive correction (QIRC) questionnaire: development and validation. Optom Vis Sci 2004; 81: 769–777.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG et al. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 2007; 39: 175–191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller JM. Clinical applications of power vectors. Optom Vis Sci 2009; 86: 599–602.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carkeet A. Exact parametric confidence intervals for Bland‐Altman limits of agreement. Optom Vis Sci 2015; 92: e71–e80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paff T, Oudesluys‐murphy AM, Wolterbeek R et al. Screening for refractive errors in children: the plusoptiX S08 and the Retinomax K‐plus2 performed by a lay screener compared to cycloplegic retinoscopy. J AAPOS 2010; 14: 478–483.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kulp MT, Ying GS, Huang J et al. Accuracy of noncycloplegic retinoscopy, retinomax autorefractor, and SureSight vision screener for detecting significant refractive errors. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2014; 55: 1378–1385.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar