The Edward S. Harkness Eye Institute, Columbia University, New York, New York.
The Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Optom Vis Sci. 2021 Mar 1;98(3):289-294. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000001651.
The SVOne may prove useful to quickly and easily assess refractive correction needs in community screenings and low-resource settings, but not all subjects were testable with the device.
This study aimed to compare the SVOne handheld, smartphone-based wavefront aberrometer with a tabletop autorefractor in identifying refractive errors in elderly subjects.
Participants 50 years or older at community eye screenings with visual acuity worse than 20/40 in either eye underwent autorefraction followed by two SVOne trials. Power vectors of right eye data were analyzed.
Of 84 subjects who underwent autorefraction, 67 (79.8%) were successfully autorefracted with the SVOne, of whom 82.1% (55/67) had a successful repeat reading. Mean M (spherical equivalent) values from tabletop and handheld autorefraction were -0.21 D (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.71 to +0.29 D) and -0.29 D (95% CI, -0.79 to +0.21 D), respectively (P > .05). Mean astigmatism values from tabletop and handheld devices were +1.06 D (95% CI, 0.87 to 1.26 D) and +1.21 D (95% CI, 0.99 to 1.43 D), respectively (P > .05). Intraclass correlation coefficients between devices were 0.95 (95% CI, 0.93 to 0.97) for M, 0.78 (95% CI, 0.66 to 0.86) for J0, and 0.45 (95% CI, 0.24 to 0.63) for J45 (P < .05 for all). Excellent test-retest correlation between SVOne measurements was noted for M (Pearson correlation [r] = 0.96; P < .05), but a weaker correlation was noted for J0 and J45 (r = 0.67 and r = 0.63 [P < .05 for both], respectively).
The SVOne provided strong agreement for M, with the majority of readings within ±1.00 D of each other, when compared with the tabletop autorefractor. A weaker but still good correlation was noted for astigmatism. Similar findings were noted when assessing repeatability.
SVOne 可能有助于在社区筛查和资源匮乏环境中快速、轻松地评估屈光矫正需求,但并非所有受试者都可使用该设备进行测试。
本研究旨在比较 SVOne 手持式、智能手机波前像差仪与台式自动验光仪在识别老年受试者屈光不正中的差异。
在社区视力筛查中,视力低于双眼 20/40 的 50 岁及以上参与者先接受自动验光,然后进行两次 SVOne 测试。分析右眼数据的功率向量。
在接受自动验光的 84 名受试者中,67 名(79.8%)可成功进行 SVOne 验光,其中 82.1%(55/67)可重复读数。台式和手持式自动验光的平均 M 值(等效球镜)分别为-0.21 D(95%置信区间,-0.71 至 +0.29 D)和-0.29 D(95%置信区间,-0.79 至 +0.21 D)(P >.05)。台式和手持式设备的平均散光值分别为+1.06 D(95%置信区间,0.87 至 1.26 D)和+1.21 D(95%置信区间,0.99 至 1.43 D)(P >.05)。设备间的组内相关系数分别为 M 0.95(95%置信区间,0.93 至 0.97)、J0 0.78(95%置信区间,0.66 至 0.86)和 J45 0.45(95%置信区间,0.24 至 0.63)(所有 P <.05)。SVOne 测量的 M 具有极好的测试-再测试相关性(Pearson 相关系数[r] = 0.96;P <.05),但 J0 和 J45 的相关性较弱(r = 0.67 和 r = 0.63[P <.05 均)。
与台式自动验光仪相比,SVOne 对 M 的测量结果具有较强的一致性,大多数读数相差在±1.00 D 以内。散光的相关性虽然较弱,但仍然较好。在评估重复性时也有类似的发现。