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
. 2021 May 19;16(5):e0251583.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251583. eCollection 2021.

Accuracy of autorefraction in an adult Indian population

Affiliations

Accuracy of autorefraction in an adult Indian population

Rajesh S Kumar et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Purpose: Autorefractors allow non-specialists to quickly assess refractive error, and thus could be a useful component of large-scale vision screening programs. In order to better characterize the role of autorefraction for public health outreach programs in resource-limited settings, the diagnostic accuracy of two autorefractors was assessed relative to subjective refraction in an adult Indian population.

Methods: An optometrist refracted a series of patients aged ≥50 years at an eye clinic in Bangalore, India using the Nidek ARK-900 autorefractor first, followed by the 3nethra Royal autorefractor, and then subjective refraction. The diagnostic accuracy of each autorefractor for myopia, hyperopia, and astigmatism was assessed using subjective refraction as the reference standard, and measures of agreement between refractions were calculated.

Results: A total of 197 eyes in 104 individuals (mean age 63 ± 8 years, 52% female) were evaluated. Both autorefractors produced spherical equivalent estimates that were on average more hyperopic than subjective refraction, with a measurement bias of +0.16 D (95%CI +0.09 to +0.23D) for Nidek and +0.42 D (95%CI +0.28 to +0.54D) for 3nethra. When comparing pairs of measurements from autorefraction and subjective refraction, the limits of agreement were approximately ±1D for the Nidek autorefractor and ±1.75D for the 3Nethra autorefractor. The sensitivity and specificity of detecting ≥1 diopter of myopia were 94.6% (95%CI 86.8-100%) and 92.5% (95%CI 88.9-97.5%) for the Nidek, and 89.2% (95%CI 66.7-97.4) and 77.5% (95%CI 71.2-99.4%) for the 3Nethra. The accuracy of each autorefractor increased at greater levels of refractive error.

Conclusions: The sensitivity and specificity of the Nidek autorefractor for diagnosing refractive error among adults ≥50 years in an urban Indian clinic was sufficient for screening for visually significant refractive errors, although the relatively wide limits of agreement suggest that subjective refinement of the eyeglasses prescription would still be necessary.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1
Bland-Altman plots with 95% limits of agreement for (A) subjective refraction and 3Nethra autorefractor and (B) subjective refraction and Nidek autorefractor.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve, sensitivity, and specificity plotted for each half-diopter of myopia, hyperopia, and astigmatism as assessed from the subjective refraction reference standard.
Sensitivities and specificities were assessed from the optimal test threshold for each ROC curve, as assessed by the Youden index. The dots represent the estimate and the lines the 95% confidence interval (green = Nidek, red = 3nethra).

References

    1. Dandona R, Dandona L. Refractive error blindness. Bull World Health Organ. 2001;79(3):237–43. Epub 2001/04/05. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Naeser K, Hjortdal J. Multivariate analysis of refractive data: mathematics and statistics of spherocylinders. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001;27(1):129–42. Epub 2001/02/13. 10.1016/s0886-3350(00)00816-6 . - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kinge B, Midelfart A, Jacobsen G. Clinical evaluation of the Allergan Humphrey 500 autorefractor and the Nidek AR-1000 autorefractor. Br J Ophthalmol. 1996;80(1):35–9. Epub 1996/01/01. 10.1136/bjo.80.1.35 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pesudovs K, Weisinger HS. A comparison of autorefractor performance. Optom Vis Sci. 2004;81(7):554–8. Epub 2004/07/15. 10.1097/00006324-200407000-00018 . - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pesudovs K, Parker KE, Cheng H, Applegate RA. The precision of wavefront refraction compared to subjective refraction and autorefraction. Optom Vis Sci. 2007;84(5):387–92. Epub 2007/05/16. 10.1097/OPX.0b013e31804f81a9 . - DOI - PubMed

Publication types