Ohlendorf Arne, Leube Alexander, Wahl Siegfried
Institute for Ophthalmic Research, Center for Ophthalmology, Eberhard Karls University of Tuebingen, Elfriede-Aulhorn-Straße 7, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany.
Technology & Innovation, Carl Zeiss Vision International GmbH, Turnstrasse 27, 73430 Aalen, Germany.
J Clin Med. 2020 Jul 12;9(7):2205. doi: 10.3390/jcm9072205.
Advancements in clinical measurement of refractive errors should lead to faster and more reliable measurements of such errors. The study investigated different aspects of advancements and the agreement of the spherocylindrical prescriptions obtained with an objective method of measurement ("Aberrometry" (AR)) and two methods of subjective refinements ("Wavefront Refraction" (WR) and "Standard Refraction" (StdR)). One hundred adults aged 20-78 years participated in the course of the study. Bland-Altman analysis of the right eye measurement of the spherocylindrical refractive error (M) identified mean differences (±95% limits of agreement) between the different types of measurements of +0.36 D (±0.76 D) for WR vs. AR (-test: < 0.001), +0.35 D (± 0.84 D) for StdR vs. AR (-test: < 0.001), and 0.0 D (± 0.65 D) for StdR vs. WR (-test: < 0.001). Monocular visual acuity was 0.0 logMAR in 96% of the tested eyes, when refractive errors were corrected with measurements from AR, indicating that only small differences between the different types of prescriptions are present.
屈光不正临床测量技术的进步应能实现对这类误差更快且更可靠的测量。该研究调查了技术进步的不同方面，以及通过客观测量方法（“像差仪”（AR））和两种主观优化方法（“波前屈光”（WR）和“标准屈光”（StdR））获得的球柱面处方的一致性。100名年龄在20至78岁之间的成年人参与了该研究过程。对球柱面屈光不正（M）右眼测量结果进行的Bland - Altman分析确定，不同测量类型之间的平均差异（±95%一致性界限）为：WR与AR相比为+0.36 D（±0.76 D）（t检验：<0.001），StdR与AR相比为+0.35 D（±0.84 D）（t检验：<0.001），StdR与WR相比为0.0 D（±0.65 D）（t检验：<0.001）。当用AR测量结果矫正屈光不正时，96%受试眼的单眼视力为0.0 logMAR，这表明不同类型处方之间仅存在微小差异。
