open access
Comparison of the cycloplegic refractive measurements with handheld, table-mounted refractometers and retinoscopy in children
Affiliations- Community Health Centre Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
open access
Abstract
Background: Handheld autorefractometers are now widely used for screening refractive errors in children. The purpose of the study was to compare the refractive measurements from table-mounted, handheld autorefractometers and retinoscopy in children.
Material and methods: Measurements in children with poor visual acuity and/or strabismus were obtained with the handheld 2WIN and the table-mounted Nidek ARK-1 refractometers and retinoscopy after the instillation of 0.5% atropine. Data on the sphere, spherical equivalent (SE), and cylindrical vectors at 0 degrees (J0) and 45 degrees (J45) were analysed.
Results: Data were collected from 57 children (mean age, 4.3 years ± 2.0 years). The 2WIN refractometer measure statistically significantly lower SE mean values than the Nidek ARK-1 or retinoscopy (1.67 ± 1.48 D, 2.96 ± 1.95 D, 2.92 ± 1.93 D, respectively). The 95% LOA was the narrowest for sphere, SE, J0, and J45 vector for Nidek ARK-1 refractometer and retinoscopy. The difference between the measurements of 2WIN and retinoscopy and 2WIN and Nidek ARK-1 was more pronounced in higher refractive values for sphere, SE, J0, and J45.
Conclusion: The table-mounted autorefractor provided a reading more similar to that of streak retinoscopy than to that of the handheld autorefractor. The differences between the 2WIN and the other two methods were more
pronounced in the higher refractive values, so careful interpretation of the autorefraction results would be advised,
especially in children with higher refractive values who are at most significant risk for amblyopia.
Abstract
Background: Handheld autorefractometers are now widely used for screening refractive errors in children. The purpose of the study was to compare the refractive measurements from table-mounted, handheld autorefractometers and retinoscopy in children.
Material and methods: Measurements in children with poor visual acuity and/or strabismus were obtained with the handheld 2WIN and the table-mounted Nidek ARK-1 refractometers and retinoscopy after the instillation of 0.5% atropine. Data on the sphere, spherical equivalent (SE), and cylindrical vectors at 0 degrees (J0) and 45 degrees (J45) were analysed.
Results: Data were collected from 57 children (mean age, 4.3 years ± 2.0 years). The 2WIN refractometer measure statistically significantly lower SE mean values than the Nidek ARK-1 or retinoscopy (1.67 ± 1.48 D, 2.96 ± 1.95 D, 2.92 ± 1.93 D, respectively). The 95% LOA was the narrowest for sphere, SE, J0, and J45 vector for Nidek ARK-1 refractometer and retinoscopy. The difference between the measurements of 2WIN and retinoscopy and 2WIN and Nidek ARK-1 was more pronounced in higher refractive values for sphere, SE, J0, and J45.
Conclusion: The table-mounted autorefractor provided a reading more similar to that of streak retinoscopy than to that of the handheld autorefractor. The differences between the 2WIN and the other two methods were more
pronounced in the higher refractive values, so careful interpretation of the autorefraction results would be advised,
especially in children with higher refractive values who are at most significant risk for amblyopia.
Keywords
handheld autorefractometer; table-mounted autorefractometer; pediatric vision screening; retinoscopy; refractive error
About this articleTitle
Comparison of the cycloplegic refractive measurements with handheld, table-mounted refractometers and retinoscopy in children
Journal
Issue
Vol 7 (2022): Continuous Publishing
Article type
Original paper
Pages
200-207
Published online
2022-11-16
Page views
3592
Article views/downloads
338
DOI
Bibliographic record
Ophthalmol J 2022;7:200-207.
Keywords
handheld autorefractometer
table-mounted autorefractometer
pediatric vision screening
retinoscopy
refractive error
Authors
Alma Kurent
References (18)- Kurent A, Kosec D. Amblyopia. Slovenian Medical Journal. 2019; 88(1-2): 71–76.
- Webber AL, Wood J. Amblyopia: prevalence, natural history, functional effects and treatment. Clin Exp Optom. 2005; 88(6): 365–375.
- Holmes JM, Lazar EL, Melia BM, et al. Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. Effect of age on response to amblyopia treatment in children. Arch Ophthalmol. 2011; 129(11): 1451–1457.
- Holmes JM, Repka MX, Kraker RT, et al. The treatment of amblyopia. Strabismus. 2006; 14(1): 37–42.
- de Zárate BR, Tejedor J. Current concepts in the management of amblyopia. Clin Ophthalmol. 2007; 1(4): 403–414.
- Kerr NC. Focal Points 2010 Module: Advances in the management of amblyopia. Am Acad Ophthalmol. 2010; 28(7): 2010.
- Harvey EM, Miller JM, Wagner LK, et al. Reproducibility and accuracy of measurements with a hand held autorefractor in children. Br J Ophthalmol. 1997; 81(11): 941–948.
- Choong YF, Chen AH, Goh PP. A comparison of autorefraction and subjective refraction with and without cycloplegia in primary school children. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006; 142(1): 68–74.
- Prabakaran S, Dirani M, Chia A, et al. Cycloplegic refraction in preschool children: comparisons between the hand-held autorefractor, table-mounted autorefractor and retinoscopy. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2009; 29(4): 422–426.
- Tuncer I, Zengin MO, Karahan E. Comparison of the Retinomax hand-held autorefractor versus table-top autorefractor and retinoscopy. Int J Ophthalmol. 2014; 7(3): 491–495.
- Akil H, Keskin S, Çavdarli C. Comparison of the refractive measurements with hand-held autorefractometer, table-mounted autorefractometer and cycloplegic retinoscopy in children. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2015; 29(3): 178–184.
- Ogbuehi KC, Almaliki WH, AlQarni A, et al. Reliability and reproducibility of a handheld videorefractor. Optom Vis Sci. 2015; 92(5): 632–641.
- Yalcın E, Sultan P, Yılmaz S, et al. A Comparison of Refraction Defects in Childhood Measured Using Plusoptix S09, 2WIN Photorefractometer, Benchtop Autorefractometer, and Cycloplegic Retinoscopy. Semin Ophthalmol. 2017; 32(4): 422–427.
- Mirzajani A, Qasemi F, Asharlous A, et al. Are the results of handheld auto-refractometer as valid as the result of table-mounted refractometer? J Curr Ophthalmol. 2019; 31(3): 305–311.
- Schimitzek T, Wesemann W. Clinical evaluation of refraction using a handheld wavefront autorefractor in young and adult patients. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002; 28(9): 1655–1666.
- Wesemann W, Dick B. Accuracy and accommodation capability of a handheld autorefractor. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000; 26(1): 62–70.
- Paff T, Oudesluys-Murphy AM, Wolterbeek R, et al. Screening for refractive errors in children: the plusoptiX S08 and the Retinomax K-plus2 performed by a lay screener compared to cycloplegic retinoscopy. J AAPOS. 2010; 14(6): 478–483.
- Hashemi H, Khabazkhoob M, Asharlous A, et al. Cycloplegic autorefraction versus subjective refraction: the Tehran Eye Study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016; 100(8): 1122–1127.