Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2018 Dec;95(12):1135-1141.
doi: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000001308.

Accuracy of a Smartphone-based Autorefractor Compared with Criterion-standard Refraction

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Accuracy of a Smartphone-based Autorefractor Compared with Criterion-standard Refraction

V Swetha E Jeganathan et al. Optom Vis Sci. 2018 Dec.

Abstract

Significance: Uncorrected refractive error is a prevalent problem throughout the world especially among the low-income population who have limited access to professional eye care and cannot afford eyeglasses.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and usability of a low-cost, portable, smartphone-based autorefractor (Netra, EyeNetra Inc., Somerville, MA) in adults.

Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted to compare the portable refractor with subjective (manifest and cycloplegic) refraction for sequential adult participants with best-corrected visual acuity of 20/40 or greater. For each method of refraction, the spherical equivalent was calculated. Differences between methods were tested with linear mixed regression models. A validated usability questionnaire was administered regarding ease of use (100-point scale, higher scores better) for the portable autorefractor.

Results: Eighty-seven subjects (152 eyes) were studied (age range, 20 to 90 years; mean ± standard deviation, 51.9 ± 18.3 years). Mean spherical equivalent by the portable device was -2.76 D (range, -14.75 to 3.63 D) compared with -2.49 D (range, -15.25 to 4.25 D) by manifest refraction. The mean relative difference in spherical equivalent between methods was -0.27 D (P = .001, significantly different than 0 D). The mean absolute difference between methods was 0.69 D (P < .001, significantly different than 0.5-D absolute difference). Similar results were found when comparing spherical equivalent between Netra and cycloplegic refraction methods. Subjects reported average ease of use for the Netra of 75.4 ± 19.8.

Conclusions: The portable autorefractor had small but clinically significant differences from subjective refraction. The device's scores on the usability scale indicate good overall patient acceptance. The device may be valuable for use where there is limited access to a trained refractionist.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Scatterplots and Bland-Altman plots comparing spherical equivalent measurement between Netra refraction and Manifest refraction (upper panels), Netra refraction and Cycloplegic refraction (lower panels). Reference lines denote no difference (solid black line) and differences >0.5 diopters (dashed gray lines). BCVA = Best-Corrected Visual Acuity.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Bar charts comparing best-corrected visual acuity obtained between Netra refraction and Manifest refraction (left panel), Netra refraction and Cycloplegic refraction (right panel).

References

    1. Teutsch SM, McCoy MA, Woodbury RB, Welp A, editors. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow The National Academies Collection: Reports Funded by National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2016. - PubMed
    1. Bourne RR, Jonas JB, Flaxman SR, et al. Prevalence and Causes of Vision Loss in High-Income Countries and in Eastern and Central Europe: 1990–2010. Br J Ophthalmol 2014;98:629–38. - PubMed
    1. Varma R, Vajaranant TS, Burkemper B, et al. Visual Impairment and Blindness in Adults in the United States: Demographic and Geographic Variations from 2015 to 2050. JAMA Ophthalmol 2016;134:802–9. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Resnikoff S, Pascolini D, Mariotti SP, Pokharel GP. Global Magnitude of Visual Impairment Caused by Uncorrected Refractive Errors in 2004. Bull World Health Organ 2008;86:63–70. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sherrod CE, Vitale S, Frick KD, Ramulu PY. Association of Vision Loss and Work Status in the United States. JAMA Ophthalmol 2014;132:1239–42. - PubMed

Publication types