Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10397/14499
Title: How representative is the 'Representative Value' of refraction provided by the Shin-Nippon NVision-K 5001 autorefractor?
Authors: Tang, WC
Tang, YY
Lam, CSY 
Keywords: Agreement
Autorefractor
Myopia
Refraction
Issue Date: 2014
Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell
Source: Ophthalmic and physiological optics, 2014, v. 34, no. 1, p. 89-93 How to cite?
Journal: Ophthalmic and physiological optics 
Abstract: Purpose: The aim of the study was to evaluate the level of agreement between the 'Representative Value' (RV) of refraction obtained from the Shin-Nippon NVision-K 5001 instrument with values calculated from individual measurement readings using standard algebraic methods. Methods: Cycloplegic autorefraction readings for 101 myopic children aged 8-13 years (10.9 ± 1.42 years) were obtained using the Shin-Nippon NVision-K 5001. Ten autorefractor measurements were taken for each eye. The spherical equivalent (SE), sphere (Sph) and cylindrical component (Cyl) power of each eye were calculated, firstly, by averaging the 10 repeated measurements (Mean SE, Mean Sph and Mean Cyl), and secondly, by the vector representation method (Vector SE, Vector Sph and Vector Cyl). These calculated values were then compared with those of RV (RV SE, RV Sph and RV Cyl) provided by the proprietary software of the NVision-K 5001 using one-way analysis of variance (anova). The agreement between the methods was also assessed. Results: The SE of the subjects ranged from -5.37 to -0.62 D (mean ± SD, = -2.89 ± 1.01 D). The Mean SE was in exact agreement with the Vector SE. There were no significant differences between the RV readings and those calculated using non-vectorial or vectorial methods for any of the refractive powers (SE, p = 0.99; Sph, p = 0.93; Cyl, p = 0.24). The (mean ± SD) differences were: RV SE vs Mean SE (and also RV SE vs Vector SE) -0.01 ± 0.06 D; RV Sph vs Mean Sph, -0.01 ± 0.05 D; RV Sph vs Vector Sph, -0.04 ± 0.06 D; RV Cyl vs Mean Cyl, 0.01 ± 0.07 D; RV Cyl vs Vector Cyl, 0.06 ± 0.09 D. Ninety-eight percent of RV reading differed from their non-vectorial or vectorial counterparts by less than 0.25 D. Conclusion: The RV values showed good agreement to the results calculated using conventional methods. Although the formula used to calculate RV by the NVision-K 5001 autorefractor is proprietary, our results provide validation for the use of RV measurements in clinical practice and vision science research.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10397/14499
ISSN: 0275-5408
EISSN: 1475-1313
DOI: 10.1111/opo.12098
Appears in Collections:Journal/Magazine Article

Access
View full-text via PolyU eLinks SFX Query
Show full item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

6
Last Week
0
Last month
0
Citations as of Aug 13, 2017

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

7
Last Week
0
Last month
0
Citations as of Aug 12, 2017

Page view(s)

28
Last Week
2
Last month
Checked on Aug 13, 2017

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric



Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.