Francisco Carlos de Castro Neto, Ricardo Noguera Louzada, Daniel Oliveira Dantas, Dillan Cunha Amaral, Claudio do Carmo Chaves Filho, Milton Ruiz Alves
{"title":"Evaluation of Portable, Low-Cost Autorefractor in School Students with Limited Eye Care Access in Northeastern Brazil.","authors":"Francisco Carlos de Castro Neto, Ricardo Noguera Louzada, Daniel Oliveira Dantas, Dillan Cunha Amaral, Claudio do Carmo Chaves Filho, Milton Ruiz Alves","doi":"10.3390/vision9010017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study compared the refraction measurements of the ClickCheck™ device (CCD), Topcon KR-8000, and subjective clinical refractometry (SCR) in Brazilian public school students with limited access to eye care. Eighty-seven eyes of healthy students aged 7 to 17 underwent refractometry using the CCD, Topcon KR-8000, and SCR methods under cycloplegia, with only the right-eye data analyzed. For comparison, the measurements were converted into spherical equivalents (SEs) and vector magnitudes. The mean SE difference between CCD and Topcon KR-8000 was -0.27 ± 0.58 (<i>p</i> < 0.0001), while the vector magnitudes at the 90° and 135° meridians were -0.23 ± 0.55 (<i>p</i> = 0.0001) and +0.04 ± 0.47 (<i>p</i> = 0.2246), respectively, demonstrating no clinical relevance. Similarly, the mean SE difference between CCD and SCR was -0.18 ± 0.58 (<i>p</i> = 0.065), with vector magnitudes of -0.20 ± 0.50 (<i>p</i> = 0.0003) at 90° and +0.03 ± 0.46 (<i>p</i> = 0.3730) at 135°, also lacking clinical relevance. Despite statistically significant differences between the methods, the findings confirm strong agreement, validating CCD as an effective refractive assessment tool for children in low-resource settings. These methods can enhance access to refraction services in underserved populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":36586,"journal":{"name":"Vision (Switzerland)","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11946441/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vision (Switzerland)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/vision9010017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This study compared the refraction measurements of the ClickCheck™ device (CCD), Topcon KR-8000, and subjective clinical refractometry (SCR) in Brazilian public school students with limited access to eye care. Eighty-seven eyes of healthy students aged 7 to 17 underwent refractometry using the CCD, Topcon KR-8000, and SCR methods under cycloplegia, with only the right-eye data analyzed. For comparison, the measurements were converted into spherical equivalents (SEs) and vector magnitudes. The mean SE difference between CCD and Topcon KR-8000 was -0.27 ± 0.58 (p < 0.0001), while the vector magnitudes at the 90° and 135° meridians were -0.23 ± 0.55 (p = 0.0001) and +0.04 ± 0.47 (p = 0.2246), respectively, demonstrating no clinical relevance. Similarly, the mean SE difference between CCD and SCR was -0.18 ± 0.58 (p = 0.065), with vector magnitudes of -0.20 ± 0.50 (p = 0.0003) at 90° and +0.03 ± 0.46 (p = 0.3730) at 135°, also lacking clinical relevance. Despite statistically significant differences between the methods, the findings confirm strong agreement, validating CCD as an effective refractive assessment tool for children in low-resource settings. These methods can enhance access to refraction services in underserved populations.