Refractive ErrorNCT01342393
Proof of Concept Study for First-Sight Refractive Error Correction: Direct Comparison to Manifest Refraction and Autorefraction Results
An observational study of Refractive Error, run by University of Nebraska at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
Proof of concept study is to compare the best corrected visual acuity obtained via First-Sight lenses with the clinical "gold standard" of manifest refraction and autorefraction. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 19 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Refractive Error
- How many people
- 41 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Apr 2011to Aug 2011
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 19 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: Population with refractive error between -4.50 to +4.50 diopter spherical error and astigmatism up to -1.50 diopters
Who may be able to join
- Subjects must be 19 years of age and older.
- A refractive error of -4.50 to +4.50 diopter spherical error and astigmatism up to -1.50 diopters on manifest refraction and autorefraction as documented in the patient's medical records.
- Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 20/20 with manifest refraction.
- No known ocular pathology from previous clinical exams that may limit best corrected visual acuity.
Who cannot join
- Refractive error greater than -4.50 or +4.50 diopter, or astigmatism greater than -1.50 diopters.
- Known ocular (corneal, lenticular, vitreal, or retinal) pathology that may limit BCVA.
- Best corrected visual acuity with spectacles of 20/25 or worse.
- Any previous surgical or laser procedures that may limit BCVA
- 18 years of age and younger
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
University of Nebraska Medical Center, Department of Ophthalmology
Omaha, Nebraska, 68198
About this study
Official title: Proof of Concept Study for First-Sight Refractive Error Correction:Direct Comparison to Manifest Refraction and Autorefraction Results
Proof of concept study is to compare the best corrected visual acuity obtained via First-Sight lenses with the clinical "gold standard" of manifest refraction and autorefraction.
Read the detailed description
Uncorrected refractive error is a frequent cause of visual impairment in the global population. In 2006, the World Health Organization released global estimates on visual impairment. According to their findings, there are approximately 314 million people in the world whose vision is impaired. Of this population 90% of those individuals live in developing countries and 153 million cases are believed to be due to uncorrected refractive error. The impact of uncorrected refractive error is great, including, but not limited to, loss of employment opportunities, inability to care for family, and inability to receive an education. The challenge is to determine the most effective and accessible method of detecting refractive error and dispensing spectacles for better vision.
In the clinical setting, refractive error is corrected by prescribing spectacles or contact lenses on a daily basis. Typically the patient will first undergo autorefraction, in which a computer-controlled machine is used to objectively calculate the refractive error present as a starting point for the subjective refraction test. This machine, however, is cumbersome and not easily transportable abroad. Typically the machine is held up to the patient's forehead and they are asked to look into the machine at a distant object. While they are looking at this object the machine calculates the refractive error. Next, the patient undergoes manifest refraction, a subjective refractive test that requires the use of trial lenses and patient responses to improve the results calculated by autorefraction, resulting in the best corrected visual acuity for that patient and a prescription for the patient to receive spectacles tailored to their need.
As a testimony to how prevalent uncorrected refractive error is in the developing world, refractive error in Nigerian adults and the prevalence of spectacle use was studied. In an article titled Refractive errors in Nigerian adults: prevalence, types and spectacle coverage, researchers looked at types of refractive errors and the ability of off the shelf spectacles to meet the corrective need in the 13,599 Nigerian adults. Patients underwent autorefraction and a detailed clinical exam and it was discovered that uncorrected refractive errors were responsible for 77.9% of visual impairment at the 20/40 to 20/60 level, and 57.1% at the 20/60 to 20/200 level. It also found that spectacles could improve the vision of 1,279 adults in the 20/40 range and 882 participants at the 20/60 level. However, only 3-4% of those individuals wore spectacles.
First-Sight is a simplified way to correct refractive error. It is easily portable, making it accessible to remote areas of the world. Unlike the study cited above, First-Sight can be brought to remote areas where clinics are not available and patients are not able to afford to pay for the clinic visit. As it is a simplified technique, local health care workers may easily be able to learn how to use First-Sight and dispense spectacles to those in need. Lastly, the sponsor of First-Sight will provide the refracting kits and custom-made spectacles at no cost to the health care workers and patients.
- Conditions
- Refractive Error
- Medical subject headings
- Refractive Errors
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted27 Apr 2011 (estimated)
- Study startApr 2011
- Primary completionAug 2011
- Study completionAug 2011
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Refractive ErrorStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Enrolment
- 41 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Nebraska
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Michael Feilmeier, MD, Principal investigator, UNMC Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01342393
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 131-11
- Status last verified
- Jan 2012
- First submitted
- 25 Apr 2011
- Last updated
- 11 Jan 2012
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 11 Jan 2012. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Proof of Concept Study for First-Sight Refractive Error Correction:Direct Comparison to Manifest Refraction and Autorefraction Results
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01342393
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 131-11
- Conditions
- Refractive Error
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 41 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of NebraskaUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Apr 2011
- Primary completion
- Aug 2011 (actual)
- Study completion
- Aug 2011 (actual)
- First posted
- 27 Apr 2011 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Proof of concept study is to compare the best corrected visual acuity obtained via First-Sight lenses with the clinical "gold standard" of manifest refraction and autorefraction.
Detailed description
Uncorrected refractive error is a frequent cause of visual impairment in the global population. In 2006, the World Health Organization released global estimates on visual impairment. According to their findings, there are approximately 314 million people in the world whose vision is impaired. Of this population 90% of those individuals live in developing countries and 153 million cases are believed to be due to uncorrected refractive error. The impact of uncorrected refractive error is great, including, but not limited to, loss of employment opportunities, inability to care for family, and inability to receive an education. The challenge is to determine the most effective and accessible method of detecting refractive error and dispensing spectacles for better vision.
In the clinical setting, refractive error is corrected by prescribing spectacles or contact lenses on a daily basis. Typically the patient will first undergo autorefraction, in which a computer-controlled machine is used to objectively calculate the refractive error present as a starting point for the subjective refraction test. This machine, however, is cumbersome and not easily transportable abroad. Typically the machine is held up to the patient's forehead and they are asked to look into the machine at a distant object. While they are looking at this object the machine calculates the refractive error. Next, the patient undergoes manifest refraction, a subjective refractive test that requires the use of trial lenses and patient responses to improve the results calculated by autorefraction, resulting in the best corrected visual acuity for that patient and a prescription for the patient to receive spectacles tailored to their need.
As a testimony to how prevalent uncorrected refractive error is in the developing world, refractive error in Nigerian adults and the prevalence of spectacle use was studied. In an article titled Refractive errors in Nigerian adults: prevalence, types and spectacle coverage, researchers looked at types of refractive errors and the ability of off the shelf spectacles to meet the corrective need in the 13,599 Nigerian adults. Patients underwent autorefraction and a detailed clinical exam and it was discovered that uncorrected refractive errors were responsible for 77.9% of visual impairment at the 20/40 to 20/60 level, and 57.1% at the 20/60 to 20/200 level. It also found that spectacles could improve the vision of 1,279 adults in the 20/40 range and 882 participants at the 20/60 level. However, only 3-4% of those individuals wore spectacles.
First-Sight is a simplified way to correct refractive error. It is easily portable, making it accessible to remote areas of the world. Unlike the study cited above, First-Sight can be brought to remote areas where clinics are not available and patients are not able to afford to pay for the clinic visit. As it is a simplified technique, local health care workers may easily be able to learn how to use First-Sight and dispense spectacles to those in need. Lastly, the sponsor of First-Sight will provide the refracting kits and custom-made spectacles at no cost to the health care workers and patients.
Study design
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 19 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Population with refractive error between -4.50 to +4.50 diopter spherical error and astigmatism up to -1.50 diopters
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Subjects must be 19 years of age and older.
- A refractive error of -4.50 to +4.50 diopter spherical error and astigmatism up to -1.50 diopters on manifest refraction and autorefraction as documented in the patient's medical records.
- Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 20/20 with manifest refraction.
- No known ocular pathology from previous clinical exams that may limit best corrected visual acuity.
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Refractive error greater than -4.50 or +4.50 diopter, or astigmatism greater than -1.50 diopters.
- Known ocular (corneal, lenticular, vitreal, or retinal) pathology that may limit BCVA.
- Best corrected visual acuity with spectacles of 20/25 or worse.
- Any previous surgical or laser procedures that may limit BCVA
- 18 years of age and younger
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
Not reported in the source record.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 11 Jan 2012.
Related trials for Refractive Error
Enrolling by invitation
Therapeutic Efficacy of Different Repeated Low-Intensity Red Light Devices and Different Usage Frequencies
Myopia
Not yet recruiting
Clinical Performance and Outcomes After Toric Lens Transition
Astigmatism
RecruitingPhase 4
Arcuate Incisions With Light Adjustable Lens for Astigmatism Correction in Lens Surgery
Astigmatism
RecruitingPhase 3
A RCT of Spectacles With Aspherical Lenslets or 0.05% Atropine for Myopia Control
Myopia
Not yet recruiting
Evaluation of the Agreement Between Automated Program-Operated Phoropter Subjective Refraction and Optometrist-Performed Subjective Refraction
Refractive Errors
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Michael Feilmeier, MD principal investigator
UNMC Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Refractive Error, run by University of Nebraska at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 5 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 11 Jan 2012. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 11 Jan 2012.