Observational study compares refractive parameters of a new aberrometer and subjective refraction, suggesting good agreement overall.
To compare and evaluate the agreement between refractive measurements obtained by the new open-field OFA-Osiris (CSO®) aberrometer and the subjective refraction. Observational, prospective, cross-sectional study involving healthy eyes. Subjects underwent a subjective refraction and ocular aberrometry using the OFA-Osiris device. Sphere, cylinder, and axis values obtained from both methods were converted to polar notation using M, J0 and J45 vectors. Refractive data from ocular aberrometry were extracted at 4 and 5 mm pupil diameters. The Wilcoxon sum-rank test was used to compare the methods, and Bland-Altman plots were used for the agreement analysis. 183 eyes from 183 subjects (mean age: 24.9 ± 5.2 years) were included. No significant differences were found between the subjective and the objective refractive obtained with the OFA-Osiris aberrometer considering a pupil diameter of 5 mm for astigmatic parameters (J0 0.01 ± 0.19 D vs. 0.02 ± 0.26 D, J45 0.03 ± 0.21 D vs. 0.01 ± 0.24, p > 0.05) but a significant difference were observed in terms of spherical equivalent (M -1.42 ± 2.06 D vs. -1.50 ± 2.17 D, p: 0.001) When considering a pupil diameter of 4 mm for the objective refraction measurement, no significant differences were observed in any refractive parameter (M -1.42 ± 2.06 D vs. 1.42 ± 2.25, J0 0.01 ± 0.19 D vs. 0.01 ± 0.265 D, J45 0.03 ± 0.21 D vs. 0.01 ± 0.26, p > 0.05). Bland-Altman plots revealed 95% confidence intervals higher than 0.50 D. Aberrometric refraction provided by the new open-field aberrometer, OFA-Osiris, showed general good agreement with subjective refraction – particularly for a pupil diameter of 4 mm – but not being totally interchangeable by the presence of some unacceptable cases and recommending the subjective refraction as gold standard for refractive evaluation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Martinez-Abad et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: