IOVS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Orr, P. R.
Right arrow Articles by Bressler, N. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Orr, P. R.
Right arrow Articles by Bressler, N. M.
(Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2001;42:447-452.)
© 2001 by The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.

Manifest Refraction Versus Autorefraction for Patients with Subfoveal Choroidal Neovascularization

Peggy R. Orr1, Laura D. Cramer2, Barbara S. Hawkins3 and Neil M. Bressler1

From 1 The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and 2 Wilmer Clinical Trials and Biometry, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland; and the 3 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.

PURPOSE. To compare the results from manifest refraction using trial lenses and a standard visual acuity protocol to results from autorefraction for obtaining refractive error and best corrected visual acuity in patients enrolled in a randomized clinical trial.

METHODS. During a 4-month period, 29 patients with subfoveal choroidal neovascularization (CNV), who were enrolled in the Submacular Surgery Trials (SSTs) Pilot Study at the Wilmer Ophthalmological Institute, gave verbal consent to participate in this study. Best corrected visual acuity was obtained using Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) visual acuity charts and standardized room lighting after performance of manifest refraction, according to the SST protocol, and autorefraction. Refractive error (spherical equivalent) and visual acuity scores were obtained in both eyes of all patients.

RESULTS. On average, manifest refraction gave a spherical equivalent that was 1.04 D more plus than autorefraction (95% limits of agreement = 0.74, 1.34). On average, the visual acuity score was 1.5 letters better after manifest refraction than after autorefraction (95% limits of agreement = 0, 3.0).The comparison of the two methods of refraction was subdivided according to visual acuity level and eye disease (age-related macular degeneration or ocular histoplasmosis syndrome).

CONCLUSIONS. Despite large differences in spherical equivalent between manifest refraction and autorefraction, the visual acuity scores were close (mean difference, 1.5 letters). Other studies comparing subjective refraction and autorefraction have shown similar results. Autorefraction in patients with subfoveal CNV may be a satisfactory alternative to manifest refraction in clinical trials and field studies in which best corrected visual acuity is of interest.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2001 by the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology