Person:
Andreoli, Christopher

Profile Picture

Email Address

AA Acceptance Date

Birth Date

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Job Title

Last Name

Andreoli

First Name

Christopher

Name

Andreoli, Christopher

Filters

20121

Settings

Author's Publications: search.filters.isAuthorOfPublication.27a33dd1-4765-49b0-9b55-211364454e2e

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Evaluation of Visual Acuity Measurements After Autorefraction vs Manual Refraction in Eyes With and Without Diabetic Macular Edema
    (American Medical Association (AMA), 2012) Qin, Haijing; Aiello, Lloyd; Melia, Michele; Beck, Roy; Andreoli, Christopher; Edwards, Paul; Glassman, Adam; Pavlica, Michael
    Objective: To compare visual acuity (VA) scores after autorefraction versus research protocol manual refraction in eyes of patients with diabetes and a wide range of VA. Methods: Electronic Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (E-ETDRS) VA Test© letter score (EVA) was measured after autorefraction (AR-EVA) and after Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network (DRCR.net) protocol manual refraction (MR-EVA). Testing order was randomized, study participants and VA examiners were masked to refraction source, and a second EVA utilizing an identical manual refraction (MR-EVAsupl) was performed to determine test-retest variability. Results: In 878 eyes of 456 study participants, median MR-EVA was 74 (Snellen equivalent approximately 20/32). Spherical equivalent was often similar for manual and autorefraction (median difference: 0.00, 5th and 95th percentiles −1.75 to +1.13 Diopters). However, on average, MR-EVA results were slightly better than AR-EVA results across the entire VA range. Furthermore, variability between AR-EVA and MR-EVA was substantially greater than the test-retest variability of MR-EVA (P<0.001). Variability of differences was highly dependent on autorefractor model. Conclusions: Across a wide range of VA 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 comparing most favorably to 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.