RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Refraction is one of the key components of a comprehensive eye examination. Auto refractometers that are reliable and affordable can be beneficial, especially in a low-resource community setting. The study aimed to validate the accuracy of a novel wave-front aberrometry-based auto refractometer, Instaref R20 against the open-field system and subjective refraction in an adult population. METHODS: All the participants underwent a comprehensive eye examination including objective refraction, subjective acceptance, anterior and posterior segment evaluation. Refraction was performed without cycloplegia using WAM5500 open-field auto refractometer (OFAR) and Instaref R20, the study device. Agreement between both methods was evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis. The repeatability of the device based on three measurements in a subgroup of 40 adults was assessed. RESULTS: The refractive error was measured in 132 participants (mean age,30.53 ± 9.36 years, 58.3% female). The paired mean difference of the refraction values of the study device against OFAR was - 0.13D for M, - 0.0002D (J0) and - 0.13D (J45) and against subjective refraction (SR) was - 0.09D (M), 0.06 (J0) and 0.03D (J45). The device agreed within +/- 0.50D of OFAR in 78% of eyes for M, 79% for J0 and 78% for J45. The device agreed within +/- 0.5D of SR values for M (84%), J0 (86%) and J45 (89%). CONCLUSION: This study found a good agreement between the measurements obtained with the portable autorefractor against open-field refractometer and SR values. It has a potential application in population-based community vision screening programs for refractive error correction without the need for highly trained personnel.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Purpose: To evaluate the agreement of dry, and cycloplegic autorefraction and wavefront-based refraction with subjective refraction.Method: 83 subjects aged 19–57 years were included in this cross-sectional study. Refractive status was determined using four methods including subjective refraction, wavefront-based refraction, dry and cycloplegic autorefraction. Refractive data were recorded as sphere, cylinder and spherical equivalent (SE). Power vector components were used to compare the astigmatism obtained using the different methods of refraction.Results: The more negative spherical, cylindrical and SE components were obtained using dry autorefraction, wavefront-based refraction and dry autorefraction, respectively. The less negative spherical, cylindrical and SE components were obtained using cycloplegic autorefraction, subjective refraction and cycloplegic autorefraction, respectively. Considering the spherical component, there was a statistically significant hyperopic shift (0.12 ± 0.29 D, p = 0.001) with cycloplegic autorefraction and a significant myopic shift (−0.17 ± 0.32 D, p < 0.001) with dry autorefraction compared to subjective refraction, while the difference between wavefront-based and subjective refraction was not significant statistically (p = 0.145). The calculated cylindrical component using subjective refraction showed statistically significant difference with dry auto-refraction (p < 0.001), cycloplegic auto-refraction (p = 0.041) and wavefront refraction (p < 0.001). The highest correlation with subjective refraction in sphere, cylinder and SE was observed for cycloplegic auto-refraction (rs = 0.967), dry auto-refraction (rs = 0.983) and cycloplegic auto-refraction (rs = 0.982), respectively.Conclusions: As subjective refraction is gold standard in our study, sphere in cycloplegic auto-refraction and astigmatism in dry auto-refraction showed better agreement and correlation. (AU)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To evaluate the agreement of dry, and cycloplegic autorefraction and wavefront-based refraction with subjective refraction. METHOD: 83 subjects aged 19-57 years were included in this cross-sectional study. Refractive status was determined using four methods including subjective refraction, wavefront-based refraction, dry and cycloplegic autorefraction. Refractive data were recorded as sphere, cylinder and spherical equivalent (SE). Power vector components were used to compare the astigmatism obtained using the different methods of refraction. RESULTS: The more negative spherical, cylindrical and SE components were obtained using dry autorefraction, wavefront-based refraction and dry autorefraction, respectively. The less negative spherical, cylindrical and SE components were obtained using cycloplegic autorefraction, subjective refraction and cycloplegic autorefraction, respectively. Considering the spherical component, there was a statistically significant hyperopic shift (0.12 ±â€¯0.29 D, p = 0.001) with cycloplegic autorefraction and a significant myopic shift (-0.17 ±â€¯0.32 D, p < 0.001) with dry autorefraction compared to subjective refraction, while the difference between wavefront-based and subjective refraction was not significant statistically (p = 0.145). The calculated cylindrical component using subjective refraction showed statistically significant difference with dry auto-refraction (p < 0.001), cycloplegic auto-refraction (p = 0.041) and wavefront refraction (p < 0.001). The highest correlation with subjective refraction in sphere, cylinder and SE was observed for cycloplegic auto-refraction (rs = 0.967), dry auto-refraction (rs = 0.983) and cycloplegic auto-refraction (rs = 0.982), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: As subjective refraction is gold standard in our study, sphere in cycloplegic auto-refraction and astigmatism in dry auto-refraction showed better agreement and correlation.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The aim of this study was to investigate the agreement between cycloplegic and non-cycloplegic autorefraction with an open-field auto refractor in a school vision screening set up, and to define a threshold for myopia that agrees with the standard cycloplegic refraction threshold. The study was conducted as part of the Sankara Nethralaya Tamil Nadu Essilor Myopia (STEM) study, which investigated the prevalence, incidence, and risk factors for myopia among children in South India. Children from two schools aged 5 to 15 years, with no ocular abnormalities and whose parents gave informed consent for cycloplegic refraction were included in the study. All the children underwent visual acuity assessment (Pocket Vision Screener, Elite school of Optometry, India), followed by non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic (1% tropicamide) open-field autorefraction (Grand Seiko, WAM-5500). A total of 387 children were included in the study, of whom 201 were boys. The mean (SD) age of the children was 12.2 (±2.1) years. Overall, the mean difference between cycloplegic and non-cycloplegic spherical equivalent (SE) open-field autorefraction measures was 0.34 D (limits of agreement (LOA), 1.06 D to -0.38 D). For myopes, the mean difference between cycloplegic and non-cycloplegic SE was 0.13 D (LOA, 0.63D to -0.36D). The prevalence of myopia was 12% (95% CI, 8% to 15%) using the threshold of cycloplegic SE ≤ -0.50 D, and was 14% (95% CI, 11% to 17%) with SE ≤ -0.50 D using non-cycloplegic refraction. When myopia was defined as SE of ≤-0.75 D under non-cycloplegic conditions, there was no difference between cycloplegic and non-cycloplegic open-field autorefraction prevalence estimates (12%; 95% CI, 8% to 15%; p = 1.00). Overall, non-cycloplegic refraction underestimates hyperopia and overestimates myopia; but for subjects with myopia, this difference is minimal and not clinically significant. A threshold of SE ≤ -0.75 D agrees well for the estimation of myopia prevalence among children when using non-cycloplegic refraction and is comparable with the standard definition of cycloplegic myopic refraction of SE ≤ -0.50 D.

RESUMEN

Objective and subjective methods of assessing time taken for accommodative change (ToAC) include accommodative dynamics (AD) and accommodative facility (AF). This study investigates the validity of novel metrics derived from the AD-profile and explores their relationship with AF. AD were assessed using a modified open-field autorefractor in 43 healthy adults. Non-linear regression curves were fitted to the data to derive: latency-of-accommodation (nLoA) and -disaccomodation (nLoD), Time-for-accommodation (ToA) and -disaccommodation (ToD), and objective-ToAC (oToAC). Latencies were also calculated through visual inspection of the AD data as in previous studies (pLoA and pLoD). AF was used to assess subjective-ToAC. Statistical analysis explored the relationships between the AD-metrics and AF. Subjects were assessed on three visits to examine intra- and inter-observer repeatability. nLoA and nLoD were greater than pLoA (p = 0.001) and pLoD (p = 0.004) respectively. nLoA and nLoD also demonstrated greater intra- and inter-observer repeatability than pLoA and pLoD. AF demonstrated a moderate, inverse correlation with ToA (p = 0.02), ToD (p = 0.007), and oToAC (p = 0.007). ToD was the single best accommodative predictor of AF (p = 0.011). The novel method for deriving latency was more repeatable, but not interchangeable with the techniques used in previous studies. ToD was the most repeatable metric with the greatest association with AF.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To compare the measurements between manifest refraction and cycloplegic refraction using retinoscopy or an autorefractor in children and to investigate factors affecting the difference. METHODS: A total of 388 children with a mean age of 7.4 ± 3.6 years were examined using retinoscopy and a Grand Seiko GR-3500KA autorefractor before and after cycloplegia. We compared the difference in spherical and cylindrical components between refractions and analyzed the results according to gender, age, type of refractive error, amblyopia, strabismus, and neuro-developmental disorder. A difference in refractions of ±0.50 D or more was considered as a significant discrepancy. RESULTS: Before cycloplegia, the spherical portion of the refractive error via autorefractor measurement was more myopic than for the retinoscopic measurement in 47.2% of patients, and the cylindrical portion was greater in 37.1%. The spherical discrepancies were more common in children aged < 7 years, with hyperopia, or amblyopia (respectively, p = 0.002, p < 0.001, and p = 0.033). After cycloplegia, the spherical component of the refractive error by auto-refraction differed from retinoscopic measurement in 29.4% of patients, and the cylindrical portion differed in 30.7%. However, the difference was not significant and there was no difference according to clinical features. More than half of the children with discrepancies in the spherical component between retinoscopic refractions before and after cycloplegia had a discrepancy between auto-refraction and retinoscopic refraction before cycloplegia, and the two discrepancies had a significant correlation. CONCLUSIONS: Auto-refraction after cycloplegia can estimate retinoscopic values partially. Nevertheless, 30% of the children still showed a discrepancy. The discrepancy of manifest refraction or auto-refraction compared to retinoscopic refraction with cycloplegia should be considered in younger children, cases with hyperopia or amblyopia, and cases with a difference in auto-refraction and retinoscopic refraction before cycloplegia.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To evaluate correlations with refractive error, astigmatism and uncorrected visual acuity after Ortho-K LKTM lens wear. METHODS: Sixty-one eyes of 32 patients who had been wearing reverse geometry lenses for over 5 weeks were recruited. Uncorrected visual acuity, subjective refraction on retinoscopy, objective refraction measured by an autorefractometer, and corneal astigmatism were measured by corneal topography before, at 2 days, and 1, 3, and 5 weeks after lenses fitting. RESULTS: Uncorrected visual acuity improved from 0.12+/-0.10 to 0.95+/-0.15 after 5 weeks. Subjective refraction on retinoscopy and objective refraction measures with the autorefractometer were -3.52+/-1.65D and -4.06+/-1.73D, respectively before wearing the lenses. These decreased to -0.08+/-0.40D and -1.98+/-2.04D, respectively after 5 weeks. The astigmatism detected by corneal topography improved from 0.93+/-0.49 to 1.20+/-1.03 after 5 weeks. Uncorrected visual acuity was correlated with the refractive error measured by subjective refraction with retinoscopy rather than that by objective refraction with the autorefractometer. Corneal astigmatism measured by corneal topography correlated with the refraction detected by the autorefractometer. CONCLUSIONS: Subjective refraction by retinoscopy rather than refraction found objectively using the autorefractometer, was highly correlated with uncorrected visual acuity (r=0.77~0.87) which seems to be useful in evaluating myopia patients. The astigmatism determined by autorefractometer examination had high correlation with that determined by corneal topography (r=0.51~0.76). This result appears useful in decisions related to the decentering of lenses.

Asunto(s)