Since functional visual acuity(FVA) was put foward,it is regraded as a kind of functional vision examination which can well reflect an individual' s performance in relation to certain daily activities involving visual tasks,the concept and the measurement is updating with the progress of technology.This examination was first applied in the patients with dry eye,and now it's applicable to detect and evaluate the refractive error,cataract,retinal pathological changes,or the eyedrops' use,and it can provide evidences for the early dignosis or the effects of thraphy of some ocular disease.In this paper,an introduction of the concept,methods and system of FVA,the clinical application of FVA in dry eye,refractive error,cataract,and in patients with fundus diseases and the research progress were reviewed.

Objective:To compare the accuracy of IOLMaster 700 and IOLMaster 500 in intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation.Methods:A cross-sectional study was conducted.Two hundred and sixty-two eyes of 262 patients who underwent phacoemulsification combined with IOL implantation at the Eye Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University from November 2018 to November 2019 were enrolled.Preoperative biometry for cataract surgery was performed using IOLMaster 700 and IOLMaster 500.IOL power was calculated through the built-in formulas, Haigis, Holladay Ⅰ, Hoffer Q and SRK/T of the two devices.The difference in IOL power calculation between the two devices was analyzed through the prediction error of IOL power calculation using different formulas across different axial length (AL) ranges.This study complied with the Declaration of Helsinki.The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Eye Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University (No.2020-038-K-33). Written informed consent was obtained from each patient before the surgery.Results:There was no significant difference in mean absolute error (MAE) between IOLMaster 700 and IOLMaster 500 using Haigis, Hoffer Q and SRK/T over the entire AL range (all at P >0.05). The MAE of IOLMaster 500 was 0.47 (0.24, 0.90) D, which was significantly lower than 0.50 (0.28, 0.99) D of IOLMaster 700 using Holladay Ⅰ formula ( Z=-3.120, P=0.002). When AL was <22.0 mm and ≥24.5 mm-<26.0 mm, there was no significant difference in MAE between the two devices using the four formulas (all at P >0.05). When AL was ≥22.0 mm-24.5 mm, there was no significant difference in the MAE between the two devices using Haigis, Hoffer Q and SRK/T (all at P >0.05), but 0.42 (0.18, 0.75) D from IOLMaster 500 was smaller than 0.45 (0.25, 0.79) D from IOLMaster 700 using Holladay Ⅰ, showing a statistically significant difference ( Z=-3.487, P <0.001). But the difference was negligible and therefore was of no clinical significance.When AL was ≥26.0 mm, there was no statistically significant difference in the MAE between the two devices using Haigis, Holladay Ⅰ and SRK/T, but 0.66 (0.38, 1.00) D from IOLMaster 500 was significantly smaller than 0.98 (0.62, 1.32) D from IOLMaster 700 using Hoffer Q ( Z=-3.046, P=0.002). Conclusions:The refractive prediction accuracy of IOLMaster 700 and IOLMaster 500 using Haigis, Hoffer Q and SRK/T is similar over the entire AL range.For patient with long AL, the IOL calculation from IOLMaster 700 using Hoffer Q is significantly larger than that from IOLMaster 500, which requires extra caution in clinical practice.The accuracy of IOLMaster 700 and IOLMaster 500 for IOL prediction is very similar.