Refractive error accuracy and user perceptions of a smartphone home-based tester

Lungile M. Buthelezi, Tsatsawani N. Hlungwani, Gcinile P. Mbuli, S’bahle S. Mthembu, Pallo Nteke, Thuli Sindane, Siyathemba A. Skam
{"title":"Refractive error accuracy and user perceptions of a smartphone home-based tester","authors":"Lungile M. Buthelezi, Tsatsawani N. Hlungwani, Gcinile P. Mbuli, S’bahle S. Mthembu, Pallo Nteke, Thuli Sindane, Siyathemba A. Skam","doi":"10.4102/aveh.v83i1.902","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Uncorrected refractive error accounts for nearly half of the global burden of vision impairment. The EyeQue personal vision tracker (EPVT) was created as a convenient smartphone refractometer to be used at home and order spectacles online thereafter. However, its accuracy in diagnosing refractive error has not been fully established.Aim: This study aimed to determine the accuracy of the EPVT in measurement of refractive error and determine user perception on device use.Setting: University of KwaZulu-Natal optometry clinic, Westville campus.Methods: This was a comparative cross-sectional study using a double-blind design. Objective, non-cycloplegic refraction testing results using the EPVT were compared with gold standard ophthalmic subjective refraction (SR). Both eyes were considered for the analysis with comparisons being made between EPVT and gold subjective standard refraction for each eye. User perception was evaluated by means of a structured questionnaire.Results: The mean spherical equivalent refractive error was –0.18 ± 0.70 dioptre (D) and –1.12 ± 2.79 D for the gold standard ophthalmic SR and EPVT, respectively, with significant differences in visual acuities yielded by the two methods (p = 0.000). Participants preferred gold standard refraction testing over the EPVT.Conclusion: The EPVT was not accurate in measuring refractive error; therefore, the resultant prescription from EPVT alone should not be used to order spectacles. However, this digital tool presents promise as an autorefractor for screening refractive error rather than as a diagnostic device.Contribution: This study offered valuable insights into the prospective utility of home-based, self-administered smartphone refractive error testers as a tool for screening of refractive error. The study also provided cautions to the EPVTs limitations related to accuracy and limited ocular health assessment, which have broader implications for visual health and quality.","PeriodicalId":7694,"journal":{"name":"African Vision and Eye Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African Vision and Eye Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4102/aveh.v83i1.902","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Uncorrected refractive error accounts for nearly half of the global burden of vision impairment. The EyeQue personal vision tracker (EPVT) was created as a convenient smartphone refractometer to be used at home and order spectacles online thereafter. However, its accuracy in diagnosing refractive error has not been fully established.Aim: This study aimed to determine the accuracy of the EPVT in measurement of refractive error and determine user perception on device use.Setting: University of KwaZulu-Natal optometry clinic, Westville campus.Methods: This was a comparative cross-sectional study using a double-blind design. Objective, non-cycloplegic refraction testing results using the EPVT were compared with gold standard ophthalmic subjective refraction (SR). Both eyes were considered for the analysis with comparisons being made between EPVT and gold subjective standard refraction for each eye. User perception was evaluated by means of a structured questionnaire.Results: The mean spherical equivalent refractive error was –0.18 ± 0.70 dioptre (D) and –1.12 ± 2.79 D for the gold standard ophthalmic SR and EPVT, respectively, with significant differences in visual acuities yielded by the two methods (p = 0.000). Participants preferred gold standard refraction testing over the EPVT.Conclusion: The EPVT was not accurate in measuring refractive error; therefore, the resultant prescription from EPVT alone should not be used to order spectacles. However, this digital tool presents promise as an autorefractor for screening refractive error rather than as a diagnostic device.Contribution: This study offered valuable insights into the prospective utility of home-based, self-administered smartphone refractive error testers as a tool for screening of refractive error. The study also provided cautions to the EPVTs limitations related to accuracy and limited ocular health assessment, which have broader implications for visual health and quality.
智能手机家用测试仪的屈光误差准确度和用户感知
背景:未矫正的屈光不正占全球视力损伤的近一半。EyeQue 个人视力跟踪器(EPVT)是一款方便的智能手机屈光仪,可在家中使用,之后可在网上订购眼镜。目的:本研究旨在确定EPVT测量屈光不正的准确性,并确定用户对设备使用的看法:地点:夸祖鲁-纳塔尔大学韦斯特维尔校区验光诊所:这是一项采用双盲设计的横断面比较研究。使用 EPVT 进行的客观、非环视屈光测试结果与金标准眼科主观屈光(SR)进行了比较。分析时考虑了双眼,对每只眼睛的 EPVT 和金标准主观屈光度进行比较。通过结构化问卷对用户感知进行评估:金标准眼科 SR 和 EPVT 的平均球面等效屈光度分别为 -0.18 ± 0.70 D 和 -1.12 ± 2.79 D,两种方法得出的视力有显著差异(p = 0.000)。与 EPVT 相比,参与者更喜欢金标准屈光测试:结论:EPVT 在测量屈光不正方面并不准确;因此,不应仅根据 EPVT 得出的处方来配眼镜。然而,这种数字工具作为一种自动折射仪,有望用于筛查屈光不正,而不是作为一种诊断设备:本研究为家庭自控智能手机屈光不正测试仪作为屈光不正筛查工具的前景提供了宝贵的见解。该研究还提醒人们注意 EPVT 在准确性和有限的眼部健康评估方面的局限性,这对视觉健康和视觉质量具有更广泛的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
African Vision and Eye Health
African Vision and Eye Health Health Professions-Optometry
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信