Accuracy and precision of automated subjective refraction in young hyperopes under cycloplegia

IF 2.2 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Gonzalo Carracedo , Carlos Carpena-Torres , Cristina Pastrana , María Rodríguez-Lafora , María Serramito , Ana Privado-Aroco , Teresa María Espinosa-Vidal
{"title":"Accuracy and precision of automated subjective refraction in young hyperopes under cycloplegia","authors":"Gonzalo Carracedo ,&nbsp;Carlos Carpena-Torres ,&nbsp;Cristina Pastrana ,&nbsp;María Rodríguez-Lafora ,&nbsp;María Serramito ,&nbsp;Ana Privado-Aroco ,&nbsp;Teresa María Espinosa-Vidal","doi":"10.1016/j.optom.2023.03.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To assess the agreement between the Eye Refract, an instrument to perform subjective automated refraction, and the traditional subjective refraction, as the gold standard, in young hyperopes under noncycloplegic and cycloplegic conditions.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A cross-section and randomized study was carried out, involving 42 participants (18.2 ± 7.7 years, range 6 to 31 years). Only one eye was chosen for the analysis, randomly. An optometrist conducted the refraction with the Eye Refract, while another different optometrist conducted the traditional subjective refraction. Spherical equivalent (M), cylindrical components (J0 and J45), and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) were compared between both refraction methods under noncycloplegic and cycloplegic conditions. A Bland-Altman analysis was performed to assess the agreement (accuracy and precision) between both refraction methods.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Without cycloplegia, the Eye Refract showed significantly lower values of hyperopia than the traditional subjective refraction (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.009), the mean difference (accuracy) and its 95% limits of agreement (precision) being -0.31 (+0.85, -1.47) D. Conversely, there were no statistical differences between both refraction methods under cycloplegic conditions (<em>p</em> ≥ 0.05). Regarding J0 and J45, both refraction methods manifested no significant differences between them under noncycloplegic and cycloplegic conditions (<em>p</em> ≥ 0.05). Finally, the Eye Refract significantly improved CDVA (0.04 ± 0.01 logMAR) compared with the traditional subjective refraction without cycloplegia (<em>p</em> = 0.01).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The Eye Refract is presented as a useful instrument to determine the refractive error in young hyperopes, the use of cycloplegia being necessary to obtain accurate and precise spherical refraction.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46407,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Optometry","volume":"16 4","pages":"Pages 252-260"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/e1/41/main.PMC10518767.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Optometry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1888429623000109","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the agreement between the Eye Refract, an instrument to perform subjective automated refraction, and the traditional subjective refraction, as the gold standard, in young hyperopes under noncycloplegic and cycloplegic conditions.

Methods

A cross-section and randomized study was carried out, involving 42 participants (18.2 ± 7.7 years, range 6 to 31 years). Only one eye was chosen for the analysis, randomly. An optometrist conducted the refraction with the Eye Refract, while another different optometrist conducted the traditional subjective refraction. Spherical equivalent (M), cylindrical components (J0 and J45), and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) were compared between both refraction methods under noncycloplegic and cycloplegic conditions. A Bland-Altman analysis was performed to assess the agreement (accuracy and precision) between both refraction methods.

Results

Without cycloplegia, the Eye Refract showed significantly lower values of hyperopia than the traditional subjective refraction (p < 0.009), the mean difference (accuracy) and its 95% limits of agreement (precision) being -0.31 (+0.85, -1.47) D. Conversely, there were no statistical differences between both refraction methods under cycloplegic conditions (p ≥ 0.05). Regarding J0 and J45, both refraction methods manifested no significant differences between them under noncycloplegic and cycloplegic conditions (p ≥ 0.05). Finally, the Eye Refract significantly improved CDVA (0.04 ± 0.01 logMAR) compared with the traditional subjective refraction without cycloplegia (p = 0.01).

Conclusions

The Eye Refract is presented as a useful instrument to determine the refractive error in young hyperopes, the use of cycloplegia being necessary to obtain accurate and precise spherical refraction.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

年轻远视眼在睫状肌麻痹状态下自动主观屈光的准确性和精确性。
目的:评估在非环肌麻痹和睫状肌麻痹条件下进行主观自动屈光的仪器Eye Refract与作为金标准的传统主观屈光之间的一致性。方法:采用横断面随机研究,共有42名参与者(18.2±7.7岁,6至31岁)。只随机选择一只眼睛进行分析。一位验光师用Eye Refract进行屈光,而另一位不同的验光师则进行传统的主观屈光。比较了两种屈光方法在非环肌麻痹和睫状肌麻痹条件下的球面当量(M)、柱面分量(J0和J45)和矫正远距视力(CDVA)。进行Bland-Altman分析以评估两种折射方法之间的一致性(准确性和精密度)。结果:在没有睫状肌麻痹的情况下,Eye Refract显示的远视值显著低于传统的主观屈光度(p<0.009),平均差(准确度)及其95%的一致性限度(准确率)为-0.31(+0.85,-1.47)D。相反,两种屈光方法在睫状肌麻痹状态下无统计学差异(p≥0.05)。关于J0和J45,两种屈光方式在非睫状肌瘫痪和睫状肌瘫状态下无显著差异(p>0.05)。最后,与传统的无睫状肌麻痹的主观屈光相比,Eye Refract显著改善了CDVA(0.04±0.01logMAR)(p=0.01)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Optometry
Journal of Optometry OPHTHALMOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
60
审稿时长
66 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信