Sun Jennifer K, Qin Haijing, Aiello Lloyd Paul, Melia Michele, Beck Roy W, Andreoli Christopher M, Edwards Paul A, Glassman Adam R, Pavlica Michael R
Beetham Eye Institute and Research Section, Joslin Diabetes Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Arch Ophthalmol. 2012 Apr;130(4):470-9. doi: 10.1001/archophthalmol.2011.377. Epub 2011 Dec 12.
To compare visual acuity (VA) scores after autorefraction vs manual refraction in eyes of patients with diabetes mellitus and a wide range of VAs.
The letter score from the Electronic Visual Acuity (EVA) test from the electronic Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study was measured after autorefraction (AR-EVA score) and after manual refraction (MR-EVA score), which is the research protocol of the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network. Testing order was randomized, study participants and VA examiners were masked to refraction source, and a second EVA test using an identical supplemental manual refraction (MR-EVAsuppl score) was performed to determine test-retest variability.
In 878 eyes of 456 study participants, the median MR-EVA score was 74 (Snellen equivalent, approximately 20/32). The spherical equivalent was often similar for manual refraction and autorefraction (median difference, 0.00; 5th-95th percentile range, -1.75 to 1.13 diopters). However, on average, the MR-EVA scores were slightly better than the AR-EVA scores, across the entire VA range. Furthermore, the variability between the AR-EVA scores and the MR-EVA scores was substantially greater than the test-retest variability of the MR-EVA scores (P < .001). The variability of differences was highly dependent on the autorefractor model.
Across a wide range of VAs at multiple sites using a variety of autorefractors, VA measurements tend to be worse with autorefraction than manual refraction. Differences between individual autorefractor models were identified. However, even among autorefractor models that compare most favorably with manual refraction, VA variability between autorefraction and manual refraction is higher than the test-retest variability of manual refraction. The results suggest that, with current instruments, autorefraction is not an acceptable substitute for manual refraction for most clinical trials with primary outcomes dependent on best-corrected VA.
比较糖尿病患者不同视力水平下自动验光与人工验光后的视力(VA)评分。
采用糖尿病视网膜病变临床研究网络的研究方案,在自动验光后(AR-EVA评分)和人工验光后(MR-EVA评分)测量电子糖尿病视网膜病变早期治疗研究中电子视力(EVA)测试的字母评分。测试顺序随机,研究参与者和视力检查者对验光来源不知情,并且进行第二次使用相同补充人工验光的EVA测试(MR-EVAsuppl评分)以确定重测变异性。
在456名研究参与者的878只眼中,MR-EVA评分中位数为74(Snellen等效值,约20/32)。人工验光和自动验光的等效球镜度通常相似(中位数差异为0.00;第5-95百分位数范围为-1.75至1.13屈光度)。然而,在整个视力范围内,平均而言,MR-EVA评分略优于AR-EVA评分。此外,AR-EVA评分与MR-EVA评分之间的变异性明显大于MR-EVA评分的重测变异性(P <.001)。差异的变异性高度依赖于自动验光仪型号。
在多个地点使用多种自动验光仪对不同视力水平进行测量时,自动验光的视力测量结果往往比人工验光差。确定了不同自动验光仪型号之间的差异。然而,即使在与人工验光相比最有利的自动验光仪型号中,自动验光和人工验光之间的视力变异性也高于人工验光的重测变异性。结果表明,对于大多数主要结局依赖于最佳矫正视力的临床试验,使用当前仪器时,自动验光不能替代人工验光。