Dataset Information

Comparison of self-refraction using a simple device, USee, with manifest refraction in adults.

ABSTRACT: The USee device is a new self-refraction tool that allows users to determine their own refractive error. We evaluated the ease of use of USee in adults, and compared the refractive error correction achieved with USee to clinical manifest refraction.Sixty adults with uncorrected visual acuity <20/30 and spherical equivalent between -6.00 and +6.00 diopters completed manifest refraction and self-refraction.Subjects had a mean (±SD) age of 53.1 (±18.6) years, and 27 (45.0%) were male. Mean (±SD) spherical equivalent measured by manifest refraction and self-refraction were -0.90 D (±2.53) and -1.22 diopters (±2.42), respectively (p = 0.001). The proportion of subjects correctable to ?20/30 in the better eye was higher for manifest refraction (96.7%) than self-refraction (83.3%, p = 0.005). Failure to achieve visual acuity ?20/30 with self-refraction in right eyes was associated with increasing age (per year, OR: 1.05; 95% CI: 1.00-1.10) and higher cylindrical power (per diopter, OR: 7.26; 95% CI: 1.88-28.1). Subjectively, 95% of participants thought USee was easy to use, 85% thought self-refraction correction was better than being uncorrected, 57% thought vision with self-refraction correction was similar to their current corrective lenses, and 53% rated their vision as "very good" or "excellent" with self-refraction.Self-refraction provides acceptable refractive error correction in the majority of adults. Programs targeting resource-poor settings could potentially use USee to provide easy on-site refractive error correction.

SUBMITTER: Annadanam A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5794143 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of self-refraction using a simple device, USee, with manifest refraction in adults.

Annadanam Anvesh A Varadaraj Varshini V Mudie Lucy I LI Liu Alice A Plum William G WG White J Kevin JK Collins Megan E ME Friedman David S DS

PloS one 20180201 2

<h4>Background</h4>The USee device is a new self-refraction tool that allows users to determine their own refractive error. We evaluated the ease of use of USee in adults, and compared the refractive error correction achieved with USee to clinical manifest refraction.<h4>Methods</h4>Sixty adults with uncorrected visual acuity <20/30 and spherical equivalent between -6.00 and +6.00 diopters completed manifest refraction and self-refraction.<h4>Results</h4>Subjects had a mean (±SD) age of 53.1 (±1 ...[more]

PMID: 29390026

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Sedentary behaviour (SB) is a risk factor for chronic disease and premature mortality. While many individual studies have examined the reliability and validity of various self-report measures for assessing SB, it is not clear, in general, how self-reported SB (e.g., questionnaires, logs, ecological momentary assessments (EMAs)) compares to device measures (e.g., accelerometers, inclinometers). OBJECTIVE:The primary objective of this systematic review was to compare self-report versus device measures of SB in adults. METHODS:Six bibliographic databases were searched to identify all studies which included a comparable self-report and device measure of SB in adults. Risk of bias within and across studies was assessed. Results were synthesized using meta-analyses. RESULTS:The review included 185 unique studies. A total of 123 studies comprising 173 comparisons and data from 55,199 participants were used to examine general criterion validity. The average mean difference was -105.19 minutes/day (95% CI: -127.21, -83.17); self-report underestimated sedentary time by ~1.74 hours/day compared to device measures. Self-reported time spent sedentary at work was ~40 minutes higher than when assessed by devices. Single item measures performed more poorly than multi-item questionnaires, EMAs and logs/diaries. On average, when compared to inclinometers, multi-item questionnaires, EMAs and logs/diaries were not significantly different, but had substantial amount of variability (up to 6 hours/day within individual studies) with approximately half over-reporting and half under-reporting. A total of 54 studies provided an assessment of reliability of a self-report measure, on average the reliability was good (ICC = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS:Evidence from this review suggests that single-item self-report measures generally underestimate sedentary time when compared to device measures. For accuracy, multi-item questionnaires, EMAs and logs/diaries with a shorter recall period should be encouraged above single item questions and longer recall periods if sedentary time is a primary outcome of study. Users should also be aware of the high degree of variability between and within tools. Studies should exert caution when comparing associations between different self-report and device measures with health outcomes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42019118755.

Project description:BackgroundAs children show a more complex but less structured movement behavior than adults, assessment of their many spontaneous and impulsive movements is a challenge for physical activity (PA) assessment. Since neither questionnaires nor accelerometers enable optimal detection of all facets of PA, a multimodal, combined approach of self-reported and device-based methods is recommended. Based on the number of days on which the participants reached the physical activity (PA) values given in the WHO guideline, this study examines 1) the difference between self-reported and device-based, measured PA and 2) whether PA differences between age and gender groups obtained by two methods are comparable.MethodsParticipants aged 6-17 years were randomly chosen and data were collected representatively at 167 sample points throughout Germany within the Motorik-Modul Study. PA of n = 2694 participants (52.3% female) was measured using the ActiGraph accelerometer (ACC) and a physical activity questionnaire (PAQ). The sample was divided into three age groups (6-10 yrs. n = 788, 11-13 yrs. n = 823, 14-17 yrs. n = 1083). Numbers of days per week with at least 60 min moderate to vigorous PA (MVPA) were analyzed for both methods.ResultsOnly every 25th respondent (4%) reaches the WHO standard of 60 min MVPA every day if measured with ACC. Self-reported PA was slightly higher (9%) (meanPAQ = 3.82 days; meanACC = 2.34 days; Fmethod = 915.85; p = <.001; fCohen = .64). The differences between the methods are significantly smaller in younger children than in the older age groups (Fage = 264.2, p < .001; fCohen = .48). The older the subjects are, the lower is the proportion of those who meet the WHO guideline on each day, with girls meeting the guideline less frequently than boys in all age groups.ConclusionChildren and adolescents living in Germany show a very low adherence to the WHO guideline on PA. While younger children are much more active with their free play, especially children over 10 years of age and especially girls should be the target of programs to increase PA.

Dataset Information

Comparison of self-refraction using a simple device, USee, with manifest refraction in adults.

Publications

Comparison of self-refraction using a simple device, USee, with manifest refraction in adults.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure