Lions Aravind Institute of Community Ophthalmology, Aravind Eye Care System, Madurai, India.
The Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Ophthalmology. 2021 Dec;128(12):1672-1680. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2021.05.030. Epub 2021 Jun 7.
To compare patient preferences for eyeglasses prescribed using a low-cost, portable wavefront autorefractor versus standard subjective refraction (SR).
Randomized, cross-over clinical trial.
Patients aged 18 to 40 years presenting with refractive errors (REs) to a tertiary eye hospital in Southern India.
Participants underwent SR followed by autorefraction (AR) using the monocular version of the QuickSee device (PlenOptika Inc). An independent optician, masked to the refraction approach, prepared eyeglasses based on each refraction approach. Participants (masked to refraction source) were randomly assigned to use SR- or AR-based eyeglasses first, followed by the other pair, for 1 week each. At the end of each week, participants had their vision checked and were interviewed about their experience with the eyeglasses.
Patients preferring eyeglasses were chosen using AR and SR.
The 400 participants enrolled between March 26, 2018, and August 2, 2019, had a mean (standard deviation) age of 28.4 (6.6) years, and 68.8% were women. There was a strong correlation between spherical equivalents using SR and AR (r = 0.97, P < 0.001) with a mean difference of -0.07 diopters (D) (95% limits of agreement [LoA], -0.68 to 0.83). Of the 301 patients (75.2%) who completed both follow-up visits, 50.5% (n = 152) and 49.5% (n = 149) preferred glasses prescribed using SR and AR, respectively (95% CI, 45.7-56.3; P = 0.86). There were no differences in demographic or vision characteristics between participants with different preferences (P > 0.05 for all).
We observed a strong agreement between the prescriptions from SR and AR, and eyeglasses prescribed using SR and AR were equally preferred by patients. Wider use of prescribing based on AR alone in resource-limited settings is supported by these findings.
比较使用低成本、便携式波前自动折射仪(AR)和标准主观折射(SR)为患者配镜的患者偏好。
随机、交叉临床试验。
来自印度南部一家三级眼科医院的年龄在 18 至 40 岁之间的屈光不正(RE)患者。
参与者先进行 SR,然后使用单眼版 QuickSee 设备(PlenOptika Inc.)进行 AR。一位独立的配镜师,对折射方法进行盲法处理,根据每种折射方法准备眼镜。参与者(对折射源进行盲法)随机分配首先使用 SR 或 AR 眼镜,每对眼镜使用 1 周。在每周结束时,参与者检查视力,并接受有关他们对眼镜体验的访谈。
使用 AR 和 SR 选择更喜欢的眼镜。
2018 年 3 月 26 日至 2019 年 8 月 2 日期间共招募了 400 名参与者,平均(标准差)年龄为 28.4(6.6)岁,68.8%为女性。SR 和 AR 的球镜等效值之间存在很强的相关性(r = 0.97,P <0.001),平均差异为-0.07 屈光度(D)(95%置信区间[LoA],-0.68 至 0.83)。在完成两次随访的 301 名患者(75.2%)中,分别有 50.5%(n = 152)和 49.5%(n = 149)更喜欢使用 SR 和 AR 处方的眼镜(95%CI,45.7-56.3;P = 0.86)。不同偏好的参与者在人口统计学或视力特征方面没有差异(所有 P > 0.05)。
我们观察到 SR 和 AR 处方之间具有很强的一致性,并且患者对使用 SR 和 AR 处方的眼镜同样满意。这些发现支持在资源有限的环境中仅基于 AR 进行处方的更广泛应用。