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

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

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: About 57 patients (102 eyes) were enrolled in the study. Patients accurately determined refractive power with self-refraction by both AdSpecs and the I-test (compared to subjective refraction SE, r2 = 0.97 and r2 = 0.94, respectively). SE of donated spectacles fit well with self-refraction SE (r2 = 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalOphthalmic Epidemiology
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

Refractive Errors
Visual Acuity
Spectinomycin
Therapeutics
Equipment and Supplies
Analysis of Variance
Vision Tests
Vision Disorders
Economics
Quality of Life

Keywords

  • Diagnostic self evaluation
  • eyeglasses
  • refractive errors

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology
  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Evaluating Self-Refraction and Ready-Made Spectacles for Treatment of Uncorrected Refractive Error. / Camp, Andrew S.; Shane, Thomas S.; Kang, Julia; Thomas, Benjamin; Pole, Cameron; Lee, Richard K.

In: Ophthalmic Epidemiology, 01.01.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Camp, Andrew S. ; Shane, Thomas S. ; Kang, Julia ; Thomas, Benjamin ; Pole, Cameron ; Lee, Richard K. / Evaluating Self-Refraction and Ready-Made Spectacles for Treatment of Uncorrected Refractive Error. In: Ophthalmic Epidemiology. 2018.
@article{f62a42854e794ef4ad5dced95022aa56,
title = "Evaluating Self-Refraction and Ready-Made Spectacles for Treatment of Uncorrected Refractive Error",
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: About 57 patients (102 eyes) were enrolled in the study. Patients accurately determined refractive power with self-refraction by both AdSpecs and the I-test (compared to subjective refraction SE, r2 = 0.97 and r2 = 0.94, respectively). SE of donated spectacles fit well with self-refraction SE (r2 = 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.",
keywords = "Diagnostic self evaluation, eyeglasses, refractive errors",
author = "Camp, {Andrew S.} and Shane, {Thomas S.} and Julia Kang and Benjamin Thomas and Cameron Pole and Lee, {Richard K}",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/09286586.2018.1500615",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Ophthalmic Epidemiology",
issn = "0928-6586",
publisher = "Informa Healthcare",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluating Self-Refraction and Ready-Made Spectacles for Treatment of Uncorrected Refractive Error

AU - Camp, Andrew S.

AU - Shane, Thomas S.

AU - Kang, Julia

AU - Thomas, Benjamin

AU - Pole, Cameron

AU - Lee, Richard K

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - 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: About 57 patients (102 eyes) were enrolled in the study. Patients accurately determined refractive power with self-refraction by both AdSpecs and the I-test (compared to subjective refraction SE, r2 = 0.97 and r2 = 0.94, respectively). SE of donated spectacles fit well with self-refraction SE (r2 = 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.

AB - 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: About 57 patients (102 eyes) were enrolled in the study. Patients accurately determined refractive power with self-refraction by both AdSpecs and the I-test (compared to subjective refraction SE, r2 = 0.97 and r2 = 0.94, respectively). SE of donated spectacles fit well with self-refraction SE (r2 = 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.

KW - Diagnostic self evaluation

KW - eyeglasses

KW - refractive errors

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85052151748&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85052151748&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/09286586.2018.1500615

DO - 10.1080/09286586.2018.1500615

M3 - Article

JO - Ophthalmic Epidemiology

JF - Ophthalmic Epidemiology

SN - 0928-6586

ER -