Objective refraction and accommodation measurement is very effective instrument. We can do it with portable refractometer. Results can be used for verification of proper function of multifocal or accommodative IOL. Objectively defined accommodation amplitude can be also used for presbyopic adition determination. Our goal is to compare objective and subjective methods for measurement of accommodation amplitude.

Results

We usually use objective and subjective methods for examination of the eye astigmatism in optometry, respectively ophthalmology. Objective methods enable to measure sphere-cylindrical refraction of the eye. If we want to prescribe new glasses or contact lenses we usually use subjective methods. We want to measure sensitivity and specificity of some subjective and objective methods for examination of the eye astigmatism. We supposed that automatic objective refraction will be the most exact method so we choose this method as the reference method. For comparison we chose subjective methods Jackson crossed cylinders (JCC), fogging method (FM) and objective method Spot Vision Screener (WelschAllyn).
We had in total 30 subjects with average age 23 years (SD 1 year) in our study. We made more than one measurement per eye and it was independent measurement so we could use measurement from each eye (n = 60). Each eye was firstly measured by subjective met. Each eye was firstly measured by subjective method FM, followed by JCC method and finally was use objective method Spot Vision Screener (WelschAllyn, W). Measurement with objective instrument TRK-1P (TOPCON) was use as reference measurement.
In variable FM we measured sensitivity 76.2 % and specificity 66.7 %. Criterion for positive finding was -0.25 D. Result was statistically significant on level p < 0.001. In variable JCC we measured sensitivity 95.2 % and specificity 66.7 %. Criterion for positive finding was -0.25 D. Result was statistically significant on level p < 0.001. In variable W we measured sensitivity 47.6 % and specificity 94.4 %. Criterion for positive finding was -0.75 D. Result was statistically significant on level p < 0.001. Direct comparison of all methods showed statistically important difference between techniques JCC and FM (p = 0.0095). In other method we did not find statistically important difference (FM vs. W, p = 0.526 and JCC vs. W, p = 0.105).
All subjective and objective techniques were s

Publications