RT info:eu-repo/semantics/article
T1 Interdevice agreement in the measurement of physiognomy parameters and frame angles to prescribe progressive addition lenses
A1 García Espinilla, Óscar
A1 Sánchez Pavón, Irene
A1 Gallegos Cocho, Inés
A1 Cañadas Suárez, María del Pilar
A1 Martín Herranz, Raúl
K1 Optometría
K1 Ophthalmic lenses adaptation
K1 Progressive addition lenses
K1 Presbyopia management
AB Clinical relevance: Ophthalmic lens adaptation requires accurate measurements of physiognomyparameters and frame angles, with a great impact on subject vision, especially when personalisedprogressive addition lenses are prescribed.Background: The aim of this study is to describe interdevice agreement between different methodsand traditional methods (frame ruler).Methods: The agreement of the interpupillary distance, nasopupillary distance and fitting pointheight measured with four devices (PD-5, OptiCenter, Visioffice and a frame ruler) and of pantoscopicand 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 ofagreement (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 −2.67to 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 rightand 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 notinterchangeable between assessed devices and that these differences could induce lens centrationerrors with a large impact on progressive addition lens prescriptions.
SN 0816-4622
YR 2023
FD 2023
LK https://uvadoc.uva.es/handle/10324/65292
UL https://uvadoc.uva.es/handle/10324/65292
LA spa
NO Clinical and Experimental Optometry, Enero 2023, vol. 106. p. 69-74.
NO Producción Científica
DS UVaDOC
RD 14-may-2024