New England College of Optometry (NECO), Boston, Massachusetts.
Optom Vis Sci. 2023 Jul 1;100(7):451-458. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000002037. Epub 2023 Jun 24.
New refractive technologies are consistently emerging in the optometry market, necessitating validation against current clinical standards.
This study aimed to compare the refractive measurements between standard digital phoropter refraction and the Chronos binocular refraction system.
Standardized subjective refraction was conducted on 70 adult participants using two separate refraction systems. The final subjective values from both devices were compared for M , J0 , and J45 . The time taken to complete refraction and patient's comfort were also evaluated.
Good agreement was found between the standard and Chronos refraction, with narrow mean differences (including 95% confidence intervals) and no significant bias for M (0.03 D, -0.05 to 0.11 D), J0 (-0.02 D, -0.05 to -0.01 D), and J45 (-0.01 D, -0.03 to 0.01 D). The bounds of the limits of agreement of M were -0.62 (lower bound; -0.76 to -0.49) and 0.68 (upper bound; 0.54 to 0.81), those of J0 were -0.24 (lower bound; -0.29 to -0.19) and 0.19 (upper bound; 0.15 to 0.24), and those of J45 were -0.18 (lower bound; -0.21 to -0.14) and 0.16 (upper bound; 0.12 to 0.19). No significant differences were noted between the two techniques for any of the refraction components ( M standard = -3.03 ± 2.42 D, M novel = -3.06 ± 2.37 D, z = 0.07, P = .47; J0 standard = 0.12 ± 0.40 D, J0 novel = 0.15 ± 0.41 D, z = 1.32, P = .09; J45 standard = -0.04 ± 0.19 D, J45 novel = -0.03 ± 0.19 D, z = 0.50, P = .31). The Chronos was significantly faster than the standard technique, with an average difference of 19 seconds (standard, 190 ± 44 seconds; novel, 171 ± 38 seconds; z = 4.91; P < .001).
The final subjective refraction end points of the standard technique and the Chronos were well aligned in this group of adult participants, and no statistically or clinically significant differences were noted in M , J0 , or J45 components. The Chronos offered improved efficiency, meeting the demands of eye care.
新的屈光技术在视光学市场上不断涌现，这就需要与当前的临床标准进行验证。
本研究旨在比较标准数字检影验光和 Chronos binocular 屈光系统的屈光测量值。
对 70 名成年参与者使用两种不同的屈光系统进行标准化主观屈光。比较两种设备的最终主观值，以获取 M、J0 和 J45。还评估了完成屈光检查所需的时间和患者的舒适度。
标准和 Chronos 屈光之间存在良好的一致性，平均差异较小（包括 95%置信区间），且无明显偏差（M：0.03D，-0.05 至 0.11D；J0：-0.02D，-0.05 至-0.01D；J45：-0.01D，-0.03 至 0.01D）。M 的一致性限的边界为-0.62（下界；-0.76 至-0.49）和 0.68（上界；0.54 至 0.81）；J0 为-0.24（下界；-0.29 至-0.19）和 0.19（上界；0.15 至 0.24）；J45 为-0.18（下界；-0.21 至-0.14）和 0.16（上界；0.12 至 0.19）。两种技术在任何屈光成分上均无显著差异（M 标准=-3.03±2.42D，M 新=-3.06±2.37D，z=0.07，P=0.47；J0 标准=0.12±0.40D，J0 新=0.15±0.41D，z=1.32，P=0.09；J45 标准=-0.04±0.19D，J45 新=-0.03±0.19D，z=0.50，P=0.31）。Chronos 明显快于标准技术，平均快 19 秒（标准，190±44 秒；新，171±38 秒；z=4.91，P<0.001）。
在本成年参与者组中，标准技术和 Chronos 的最终主观屈光终点很好地吻合，在 M、J0 或 J45 成分上未观察到统计学或临床显著差异。Chronos 提高了效率，满足了眼保健的需求。
