Autorefraction Compared to Subjectve Refraction: A Literature Review
Digital Document
Document
Content type |
Content type
|
||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Collection(s) |
Collection(s)
|
||||||||||
Title |
Title
Title
Autorefraction Compared to Subjectve Refraction: A Literature Review
|
||||||||||
Resource Type |
Resource Type
|
||||||||||
Description |
Description
Background: Autorefraction is ubiquitous throughout the optometric profession, as it aids
in the managing and prescribing of refractive error correction for patients. Subjective refraction is currently the gold standard for measurement of refractive errors, but autorefraction continues to evolve with advancements in technology. The goal of this review was to assess studies done on the general accuracy and precision of autorefraction technology and how it compares with the conventional subjective refraction. Included in this review were studies involving the different types of features that can be incorporated into autorefractors, such as wavefront analysis, portability, and open-view construction. Also discussed are studies that assess newer automated refractive technologies, which includes portable videorefractors and smartphone-based autorefractors. Methods: A literature search was performed using PubMed and the Ferris State University Flite Library databases regarding the validity of autorefraction. Studies that were published within the past twenty years and that compared autorefraction to subjective refraction were selected and reviewed. Results: Content analysis showed that there is no consistent data to support the replacement of subjective refraction with autorefraction. However, the studies assessed indicate that variability in autorefraction accuracy and precision is based on many factors, including: refractive error type, age of the subject, use of mydriatics, and type of autorefractor used. Conclusions: Autorefraction is not ready to take the place of subjective refraction due to the inadequate evidence available to support their accuracy iv and precision as acceptable alternatives. This is largely based upon the studies’ significant differences in accuracy when autorefraction is compared to subjective refraction and their lack of evaluating the refractive methods in clinically relevant settings. However, autorefractors may be useful in certain situations and settings when subjective refraction is unavailable. |
||||||||||
Handle |
Handle
http://hdl.handle.net/2323/6074
|
||||||||||
Persons |
Persons
Author (aut): Choponis, Thomas
Author (aut): Stacey, Tara
|
||||||||||
Genre |
Genre
|
||||||||||
Subject | |||||||||||
Origin Information |
Origin Information
|
||||||||||
Note |
Note
This paper is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Optometry. 44 pages.
|
||||||||||
Related Item |
Related Item
|
||||||||||
Language |
Language
|
Language |
English
|
---|---|
Name |
bitstream_15648.pdf
|
MIME type |
application/pdf
|
File size |
191273
|
Media Use | |
Authored on |
|
Download
Document