Dataset Information

Visual Acuity Prediction Based on Different Refraction Types For Patients With Down Syndrome.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to determine if control observers can be used as surrogates to predict visual acuity (VA) of patients with Down syndrome (DS).

Methods

Thirty adults with DS were enrolled in a clinical trial testing three refraction types: clinical refraction and two using wavefront aberration measures to optimize the metrics pupil fraction tessellated (PFSt) and visual Strehl ratio (VSX). Monocular VA was obtained through habitual refractions and each experimental refraction type. Five controls without DS viewed acuity charts simulating the retinal image produced when the corrections for each DS eye are worn, performing VA and scoring image quality of each chart. Group median VA (DS versus controls) were compared for each refraction type, and control image quality scores were compared to corresponding VA across refraction types.

Results

Median VA for participants with DS ranged from 0.46 logMAR (interquartile range [IQR] = 0.32 to 0.54) with habitual correction to 0.36 logMAR (IQR = 0.28 to 0.54) with VSX, whereas controls ranged from 0.37 logMAR (IQR = 0.29 to 0.42) with habitual correction to 0.01 logMAR (IQR = -0.02 to 0.05) with VSX. Overall image quality scores were best for PFSt and VSX and showed a strong linear relationship with control VA (r = -0.91, P < 0.001), and a lesser correlation with DS VA (r = -0.33, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Using surrogate observers to judge image quality simulations of eyes with DS did not predict actual VA, suggesting additional, non-optical factors may be limiting VA in individuals with DS.

Translational relevance

Findings may guide clinical refraction practices for patients with DS.

SUBMITTER: Schneider LV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10513113 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Visual Acuity Prediction Based on Different Refraction Types For Patients With Down Syndrome.

Schneider Lauren V LV Mitchell G Lynn GL Marsack Jason D JD Anderson Heather A HA

Translational vision science & technology 20230901 9

<h4>Purpose</h4>The purpose of this study was to determine if control observers can be used as surrogates to predict visual acuity (VA) of patients with Down syndrome (DS).<h4>Methods</h4>Thirty adults with DS were enrolled in a clinical trial testing three refraction types: clinical refraction and two using wavefront aberration measures to optimize the metrics pupil fraction tessellated (PFSt) and visual Strehl ratio (VSX). Monocular VA was obtained through habitual refractions and each experim ...[more]

PMID: 37725391

Similar Datasets

Project description:SignificanceThis study reports visual acuity outcomes from a clinical trial investigating an objective refraction strategy that may provide a useful tool for practitioners needing additional strategies to identify refractive corrections for adults with intellectual disability.PurposeDetermining refractions for individuals with Down syndrome is challenging because of the presence of elevated refractive error, optical aberrations, and cognitive impairment. This randomized clinical trial evaluated the performance of spectacle corrections determined using clinical techniques and objective refractions derived from wavefront aberration measures.MethodsThirty adults with Down syndrome had a clinical refraction determined by a single expert examiner using pre-dilation and post-dilation techniques appropriate for this population. Objective refractions were determined from dilated wavefront aberration measures that were processed post-visit to identify refractions that optimized each of two image quality metrics: pupil fraction tessellated and visual Strehl ratio in the spatial domain. The three refractions were dispensed in random order and worn for 2 months each. The primary outcome measure, binocular visual acuity, was obtained by a masked examiner administering a distance logMAR acuity test. To compare treatment types, mean acuity was compared using a two-sided type 3 F test of the treatment effect in a linear mixed-effects regression model, where the final model included fixed effects for treatment, period (1, 2, or 3), and first-order carryover effects.ResultsThe 2-month estimated least square means in binocular visual acuity (logMAR) were 0.34 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25 to 0.39) for clinical refractions, 0.31 (95% CI, 0.25 to 0.36) for pupil fraction tesselated refractions, and 0.33 (95% CI, 0.27 to 0.38) for visual Strehl ratio refractions. No statistically significant treatment effect was observed (F = 1.10, P = .34).ConclusionsObjective refractions derived from dilated wavefront aberration measures resulted in acuity similar to expert clinician-derived refractions, suggesting that the objective method may be a suitable alternative for patients with Down syndrome.

Project description:PurposeTo compare visual acuity (VA) scores obtained after autorefraction or using a pinhole occluder to scores obtained after refraction according to a standard clinical research protocol.DesignProspective, comparative case series.ParticipantsOne hundred ten study participants (209 eyes) with diabetes mellitus and a broad range of diabetic retinopathy severity and VA.MethodsWe measured VA after autorefraction by a Topcon KR-8000 autorefractor as well as after a Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network (DRCR.net) protocol manual refraction. The order of testing was randomized and examiners were masked to the source of each refraction. A second VA measurement, utilizing an identical DRCR.net manual refraction, was made in a subset of eyes (n = 144; 69%) to establish test-retest variability for comparison purposes. All eyes underwent VA testing using a pinhole occluder.Main outcome measuresBest corrected VA as measured by the Electronic Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Visual Acuity Test (E-ETDRS).ResultsIn all eyes, the median E-ETDRS VA letter score (EVA) obtained after manual refraction (MR-EVA) was 69 (Snellen equivalent 20/40), ranging from 4 to 93 (20/800 to 20/16). The median MR-EVA was slightly better than the median EVA obtained after autorefraction (AR-EVA), with a median difference (AR-EVA - MR-EVA) of -1 letter (25th, 75th percentiles, -4, 2 letters). The absolute difference between AR-EVA and MR-EVA was similar to the test-retest variability of MR-EVA alone. In contrast, MR-EVA was better than EVA obtained using a pinhole occluder (PH-EVA; median PH-EVA - MR-EVA, -4 letters [-9, 0]), and had significantly less test-retest variability (P<0.001). Generally, the spherical equivalent of autorefraction was slightly more hyperopic (or less myopic) than the spherical equivalent of manual refraction (median difference, +0.25 diopters [0, +0.63]).ConclusionsGiven the substantial time and effort required for training and certification of study protocol refractionists, and the similarity between AR-EVA and MR-EVA, further evaluation of autorefraction, but not pinhole occluder testing, as an alternative to the current clinical research gold standard of ETDRS protocol manual refraction in study participants with diabetic retinopathy is warranted.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare visual acuity (VA) scores after autorefraction vs manual refraction in eyes of patients with diabetes mellitus and a wide range of VAs.MethodsThe letter score from the Electronic Visual Acuity (EVA) test from the electronic Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study was measured after autorefraction (AR-EVA score) and after manual refraction (MR-EVA score), which is the research protocol of the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network. Testing order was randomized, study participants and VA examiners were masked to refraction source, and a second EVA test using an identical supplemental manual refraction (MR-EVAsuppl score) was performed to determine test-retest variability.ResultsIn 878 eyes of 456 study participants, the median MR-EVA score was 74 (Snellen equivalent, approximately 20/32). The spherical equivalent was often similar for manual refraction and autorefraction (median difference, 0.00; 5th-95th percentile range, -1.75 to 1.13 diopters). However, on average, the MR-EVA scores were slightly better than the AR-EVA scores, across the entire VA range. Furthermore, the variability between the AR-EVA scores and the MR-EVA scores was substantially greater than the test-retest variability of the MR-EVA scores (P < .001). The variability of differences was highly dependent on the autorefractor model.ConclusionsAcross a wide range of VAs at multiple sites using a variety of autorefractors, VA measurements tend to be worse with autorefraction than manual refraction. Differences between individual autorefractor models were identified. However, even among autorefractor models that compare most favorably with manual refraction, VA variability between autorefraction and manual refraction is higher than the test-retest variability of manual refraction. The results suggest that, with current instruments, autorefraction is not an acceptable substitute for manual refraction for most clinical trials with primary outcomes dependent on best-corrected VA.

Dataset Information

Visual Acuity Prediction Based on Different Refraction Types For Patients With Down Syndrome.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Translational relevance

Publications

Visual Acuity Prediction Based on Different Refraction Types For Patients With Down Syndrome.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets