4.6 Article

Repeatability and Reproducibility of a Double-Pass Optical Quality Analysis Device

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 10, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117587

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To evaluate the repeatability and reproducibility of a double-pass instrument (OQASII, Visiomereics SL, Spain), which objectively measures overall optical quality of the human eyes. Methods The right eye of 119 healthy subjects with best corrected visual acuity of 20/25 or better was included in this prospective, comparative, observational study. Two separate tests with OQASII were conducted sequentially on the same day by two different examiners. A week later, the first examiner conducted the third measurement. All subjects underwent three consecutive tests during each session. The repeatability and reproducibility of the modulation transfer function cut off frequency (MTF cutoff), the Strehl ratio, the OQAS values (OVs) at contrasts of 100%, 20% and 9%, and the objective scatter index (OSI) were analyzed. Results For MTF cutoff, Strehl ratio, OV100%, OV20%, OV9%, and OSI, the mean values were 39.32 +/- 9.75cpd, 0.22 +/- 0.06, 1.31 +/- 0.33, 1.33 +/- 0.39, 1.33 +/- 0.41, 0.60 +/- 0.42, respectively. Repeatability and reproducibility were good with a very low coefficient of variation and high interclass correlation coefficients (>0.88) for all parameters. Bland-Altman plots showed good correlation with 95% limits of agreement ranged from -6.04 to 6.78cpd, -0.05 to 0.05, -0.20 to 0.23, -0.29 to 0.32, -0.40 to 0.42, -0.23 to 0.21 in inter-observer, and -6.56 to 7.42cpd, -0.06 to 0.06, -0.22 to 0.24, -0.30 to 0.32, -0.35 to 0.34, -0.24 to 0.23 in inter-visit, respectively. Conclusion The OQASII system yields excellent repeatability and good reproducibility for objective measurements of overall optical quality in clinic.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available