Clinical relevance: Ophthalmic lens adaptation requires accurate measurements of physiognomy
parameters and frame angles, with a great impact on subject vision, especially when personalised
progressive addition lenses are prescribed.
Background: The aim of this study is to describe interdevice agreement between different methods
and traditional methods (frame ruler).
Methods: The agreement of the interpupillary distance, nasopupillary distance and fitting point
height measured with four devices (PD-5, OptiCenter, Visioffice and a frame ruler) and of pantoscopic
and frame wrap angles measured with three devices (OptiCenter, Visioffice and Essilor standard ruler)
was assessed in 21 healthy volunteers, by a Bland-Altman analysis; mean difference and limits of
agreement (LoA) were calculated.
Results: Frame ruler nasopupillary distance measurements showed limited agreement with PD-5
[−0.38 ± 1.03 (LoA −2.40 to 1.64) and 0.44 ± 1.02 (LoA −1.72 to 2.61)] and Visioffice [0.62 ± 1.24 (LoA
−1.81 to 3.05) and −0.16 ± 1.72 (LoA −3.54 to 3.22)] measurements for the right and left eyes,
respectively. Poor agreement was found for interpupillary distances (PD-5 [0.21 ± 1.47 (LoA −2.67
to 3.09)], OptiCenter [−0.05 ± 1.16 (LoA −2.32 to 2.22)] and Visioffice [0.46 ± 1.95 (LoA −3.36 to 4.28)]),
fitting point height (OptiCenter [−1.27 ± 2.56 (LoA −6.27 to 3.75) and −0.92 ± 2.77 (LoA −6.35 to 4.51)]
and Visioffice [−5.88 ± 6.21 (LoA −18.05 to 6.29) and −5.98 ± 6.12 (LoA −17.98 to 6.02)] for the right
and left eyes, respectively) and pantoscopic and frame wrap angles (OptiCenter [−4.13 ± 3.75 (LoA
−11.48 to 3.22) and −1.09 ± 0.60 (LoA −2.27 to 0.09)] and Visioffice [−6.18 ± 3.53 (LoA −13.10 to 0.74)
and −1.93 ± 3.49 (LoA −8.77 to 4.91)], respectively).
Conclusions: These results suggest that measurements of physiognomy and frame angles are not
interchangeable between assessed devices and that these differences could induce lens centration
errors with a large impact on progressive addition lens prescriptions.
