2018Ophthalmic EpidemiologyRequires access

Evaluating Self-Refraction and Ready-Made Spectacles for Treatment of Uncorrected Refractive Error

Andrew Camp, Thomas S Shane, Julia Kang, Benjamin J. Thomas, Cameron Pole, Richard K. Lee

Open publisher page 8 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE: Uncorrected refractive error is the leading cause of visual impairment worldwide and has significant quality of life and economic implications. Treatment with subjective refraction and custom-made spectacles requires expensive equipment and highly trained personnel. We examine several alternatives. METHODS: Patients were taught to self-refract using two devices: AdSpecs and the I-test Vision Screener. Ready-made spectacles were fit to the self-refraction and visual acuity (VA) was measured. Donated-spectacles were fit to subjective refraction and VA was measured. Self-refraction and donated spectacles spherical equivalent (SE) and VA were compared to subjective refraction SE and VA. RESULTS: = 0.91). There was no significant difference between best-corrected VA by subjective refraction and VA treated by ready-made spectacles fit to self-refraction by either device (analysis of variance (ANOVA), p non-significant). Patients fit with donated spectacles had significantly worse VA than best-corrected VA by subjective refraction (ANOVA, p < 0.01), although 80% improved to >20/40. CONCLUSION: Patients accurately self-refract using both devices and ready-made spectacles fit to self-refraction have excellent visual outcomes. Donated spectacles have worse visual outcomes but might be useful in a subset of patients. Ready-made spectacles fit to self-refraction may provide a treatment alternative to uncorrected refractive error.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

PURPOSE: Uncorrected refractive error is the leading cause of visual impairment worldwide and has significant quality of life and economic implications. Treatment with subjective refraction and custom-made spectacles requires expensive equipment and highly trained personnel. We examine several alternatives. METHODS: Patients were taught to self-refract using two devices: AdSpecs and the I-test Vision Screener. Ready-made spectacles were fit to the self-refraction and visual acuity (VA) was measured. Donated-spectacles were fit to subjective refraction and VA was measured. Self-refraction and donated spectacles spherical equivalent (SE) and VA were compared to subjective refraction SE and VA. RESULTS: = 0.91). There was no significant difference between best-corrected VA by subjective refraction and VA treated by ready-made spectacles fit to self-refraction by either device (analysis of variance (ANOVA), p non-significant). Patients fit with donated spectacles had significantly worse VA than best-corrected VA by subjective refraction (ANOVA, p < 0.01), although 80% improved to >20/40. CONCLUSION: Patients accurately self-refract using both devices and ready-made spectacles fit to self-refraction have excellent visual outcomes. Donated spectacles have worse visual outcomes but might be useful in a subset of patients. Ready-made spectacles fit to self-refraction may provide a treatment alternative to uncorrected refractive error.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 8 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

PURPOSE: Uncorrected refractive error is the leading cause of visual impairment worldwide and has significant quality of life and economic implications. Treatment with subjective refraction and custom-made spectacles requires expensive equipment and highly trained personnel. We examine several alternatives. METHODS: Patients were taught to self-refract using two devices: AdSpecs and the I-test Vision Screener. Ready-made spectacles were fit to the self-refraction and visual acuity (VA) was measured. Donated-spectacles were fit to subjective refraction and VA was measured. Self-refraction and donated spectacles spherical equivalent (SE) and VA were compared to subjective refraction SE and VA. RESULTS: = 0.91). There was no significant difference between best-corrected VA by subjective refraction and VA treated by ready-made spectacles fit to self-refraction by either device (analysis of variance (ANOVA), p non-significant). Patients fit with donated spectacles had significantly worse VA than best-corrected VA by subjective refraction (ANOVA, p < 0.01), although 80% improved to >20/40. CONCLUSION: Patients accurately self-refract using both devices and ready-made spectacles fit to self-refraction have excellent visual outcomes. Donated spectacles have worse visual outcomes but might be useful in a subset of patients. Ready-made spectacles fit to self-refraction may provide a treatment alternative to uncorrected refractive error.

Key concepts: Medicine, Optometry, Refraction, Refractive error, Subjective refraction, Ophthalmology, Optics, Visual acuity

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Evaluating Self-Refraction and Ready-Made Spectacles for Treatment of Uncorrected Refractive Error — Research Paper | ScholarLens