小学生非睫状体麻痹性屈光不能代替睫状体麻痹性屈光。

C. Bjørset, H. R. Pedersen, Gro O. Synstelien, S. Gilson, L. Hagen, T. Langaas, H. S. Thorud, G. H. Vikesdal, R. Baraas, E. Svarverud
{"title":"小学生非睫状体麻痹性屈光不能代替睫状体麻痹性屈光。","authors":"C. Bjørset, H. R. Pedersen, Gro O. Synstelien, S. Gilson, L. Hagen, T. Langaas, H. S. Thorud, G. H. Vikesdal, R. Baraas, E. Svarverud","doi":"10.15626/sjovs.v15i2.3645","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose was to assess the differences in spherical equivalent refractive error (SER) between cycloplegic autorefraction (1% cyclopentolate), non-cycloplegic autorefraction, and non-cycloplegic retinoscopy measured by experienced optometrists in a population with a high prevalence of hyperopia. Refractive error was measured with the three methods in 111 children aged 7–8 and 10–11 years. Bland-Altman analysis was used to assess the mean of the differences (MD) and the 95% limits of agreement (LoA) between cycloplegic autorefraction and the two non-cycloplegic methods. A mixed effects model was used to investigate the differences between methods by refractive group. Cycloplegic autorefraction gave a significantly more positive SER than both non-cycloplegic retinoscopy (MD = 0.47 D, LoA = -0.59–1.53 D) and non-cycloplegic autorefraction (MD = 0.92 D, LoA of -1.12 to 2.95 D). The mean differences in SER increased with increasing degree of hyperopia [F(4, 215) = 12.6, p < .001], both when comparing cycloplegic refraction with non-cycloplegic retinoscopy and non-cycloplegic autorefraction. \nNon-cycloplegic retinoscopy and autorefraction result in significantly less positive SER than cycloplegic autorefraction. The wide confidence intervals for the mean difference and limits of agreement are clinically unacceptable and the methods cannot be used interchangeably. Consequently, refraction without cycloplegia would cause misdiagnosis in some children. Even if non-cycloplegic retinoscopy results in narrower limits of agreement, the risk of misdiagnosis is not eliminated by being experienced in carrying out retinoscopy. We show that it is essential to use cycloplegia when refracting children, and in particular to ensure that no hyperope goes undetected.","PeriodicalId":222252,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Optometry and Visual Science","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Non-cycloplegic refraction cannot replace cycloplegic refraction in primary school children.\",\"authors\":\"C. Bjørset, H. R. Pedersen, Gro O. Synstelien, S. Gilson, L. Hagen, T. Langaas, H. S. Thorud, G. H. Vikesdal, R. Baraas, E. Svarverud\",\"doi\":\"10.15626/sjovs.v15i2.3645\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The purpose was to assess the differences in spherical equivalent refractive error (SER) between cycloplegic autorefraction (1% cyclopentolate), non-cycloplegic autorefraction, and non-cycloplegic retinoscopy measured by experienced optometrists in a population with a high prevalence of hyperopia. Refractive error was measured with the three methods in 111 children aged 7–8 and 10–11 years. Bland-Altman analysis was used to assess the mean of the differences (MD) and the 95% limits of agreement (LoA) between cycloplegic autorefraction and the two non-cycloplegic methods. A mixed effects model was used to investigate the differences between methods by refractive group. Cycloplegic autorefraction gave a significantly more positive SER than both non-cycloplegic retinoscopy (MD = 0.47 D, LoA = -0.59–1.53 D) and non-cycloplegic autorefraction (MD = 0.92 D, LoA of -1.12 to 2.95 D). The mean differences in SER increased with increasing degree of hyperopia [F(4, 215) = 12.6, p < .001], both when comparing cycloplegic refraction with non-cycloplegic retinoscopy and non-cycloplegic autorefraction. \\nNon-cycloplegic retinoscopy and autorefraction result in significantly less positive SER than cycloplegic autorefraction. The wide confidence intervals for the mean difference and limits of agreement are clinically unacceptable and the methods cannot be used interchangeably. Consequently, refraction without cycloplegia would cause misdiagnosis in some children. Even if non-cycloplegic retinoscopy results in narrower limits of agreement, the risk of misdiagnosis is not eliminated by being experienced in carrying out retinoscopy. We show that it is essential to use cycloplegia when refracting children, and in particular to ensure that no hyperope goes undetected.\",\"PeriodicalId\":222252,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Optometry and Visual Science\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Optometry and Visual Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15626/sjovs.v15i2.3645\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Optometry and Visual Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15626/sjovs.v15i2.3645","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的是评估由经验丰富的验光师在远视高发人群中测量的单眼自屈光(1%环戊酸盐)、非单眼自屈光和非单眼自屈光之间的球面等效屈光误差(SER)的差异。采用三种方法对111例7 ~ 8岁和10 ~ 11岁儿童进行屈光不正测量。采用Bland-Altman分析评估两种非睫状体麻痹法与单眼麻痹法的差异均值(MD)和95%一致限(LoA)。采用混合效应模型分析了不同折射组之间的差异。单眼自屈光与非单眼自屈光、非单眼自屈光相比,SER均明显阳性(MD = 0.47 D, LoA = -0.59 ~ 1.53 D)和非单眼自屈光(MD = 0.92 D, LoA = -1.12 ~ 2.95 D),且SER的平均差异随着远视程度的增加而增加[F(4,215) = 12.6, p < 0.001]。非睫状体麻痹性视网膜镜检查和自体屈光检查的SER阳性明显低于睫状体麻痹性自体屈光。平均差异的宽置信区间和一致的限度在临床上是不可接受的,并且这些方法不能互换使用。因此,无睫状体麻痹的屈光会引起一些儿童的误诊。即使非睫状体麻痹性视网膜镜检查结果的一致范围较窄,误诊的风险也不能通过进行视网膜镜检查的经验来消除。我们表明,这是必要的使用睫状体麻痹时,折射的孩子,特别是要确保没有远视不被发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Non-cycloplegic refraction cannot replace cycloplegic refraction in primary school children.
The purpose was to assess the differences in spherical equivalent refractive error (SER) between cycloplegic autorefraction (1% cyclopentolate), non-cycloplegic autorefraction, and non-cycloplegic retinoscopy measured by experienced optometrists in a population with a high prevalence of hyperopia. Refractive error was measured with the three methods in 111 children aged 7–8 and 10–11 years. Bland-Altman analysis was used to assess the mean of the differences (MD) and the 95% limits of agreement (LoA) between cycloplegic autorefraction and the two non-cycloplegic methods. A mixed effects model was used to investigate the differences between methods by refractive group. Cycloplegic autorefraction gave a significantly more positive SER than both non-cycloplegic retinoscopy (MD = 0.47 D, LoA = -0.59–1.53 D) and non-cycloplegic autorefraction (MD = 0.92 D, LoA of -1.12 to 2.95 D). The mean differences in SER increased with increasing degree of hyperopia [F(4, 215) = 12.6, p < .001], both when comparing cycloplegic refraction with non-cycloplegic retinoscopy and non-cycloplegic autorefraction. Non-cycloplegic retinoscopy and autorefraction result in significantly less positive SER than cycloplegic autorefraction. The wide confidence intervals for the mean difference and limits of agreement are clinically unacceptable and the methods cannot be used interchangeably. Consequently, refraction without cycloplegia would cause misdiagnosis in some children. Even if non-cycloplegic retinoscopy results in narrower limits of agreement, the risk of misdiagnosis is not eliminated by being experienced in carrying out retinoscopy. We show that it is essential to use cycloplegia when refracting children, and in particular to ensure that no hyperope goes undetected.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信