Hashim Ali Khan, Huy Tran, Thomas John Naduvilath, Nina Tahhan, Thao Ha, Padmaja Sankaridurg
{"title":"年轻成人近视眼屈光度数的环形屈光法与非环形屈光法比较。","authors":"Hashim Ali Khan, Huy Tran, Thomas John Naduvilath, Nina Tahhan, Thao Ha, Padmaja Sankaridurg","doi":"10.1097/OPX.0000000000002169","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Significance: </strong>This study explores the difference between cycloplegic and noncycloplegic refraction in young adult myopes.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>From the available literature, it is unclear whether cycloplegia is necessary when refracting young adults. This study investigates the agreement between noncycloplegic autorefraction and cycloplegic autorefraction and investigates factors affecting the agreement between the two methods.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In total, 125 myopes with ages ranging between 18 and 26 years were included from Australia and Vietnam. Each participant underwent noncycloplegic autorefraction and cycloplegic autorefraction. Cycloplegia was induced with 1% ophthalmic tropicamide.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean spherical equivalent difference (95% confidence interval) between noncycloplegic autorefraction and cycloplegic autorefraction was -0.20 D (-0.25 to -0.14 D; t124 = -7.18, p<0.0001 ) . A mean difference of >0.25 D was seen in 46.8% of eyes. The lower and upper limits of agreement were -0.80 and 0.41 D, respectively. With univariate analysis, factors including age, degree of refractive error, accommodation amplitude, and distance phorias showed no impact on the average difference between cycloplegic autorefraction and noncycloplegic autorefraction. Yet, eyes with near exophoria ( F2,120 = 6.63, p=0.0019) and Caucasian eyes ( F3,121 = 2.85, p=0.040) exhibited the smallest paired differences. However, in the multivariate analysis, only near exophoria was associated with a lower mean difference. A significantly smaller proportion (34.9%) of eyes with near exophoria had a paired difference of -0.25 D or more compared with esophoria (50%) and orthophoria (65%; χ2 = 6.6, p=0.038).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Noncycloplegic autorefraction results in more myopic refractive error than cycloplegic autorefraction in young adults.</p>","PeriodicalId":19649,"journal":{"name":"Optometry and Vision Science","volume":" ","pages":"470-476"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11462898/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison between cycloplegic and noncycloplegic refraction in young adult myopes.\",\"authors\":\"Hashim Ali Khan, Huy Tran, Thomas John Naduvilath, Nina Tahhan, Thao Ha, Padmaja Sankaridurg\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/OPX.0000000000002169\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Significance: </strong>This study explores the difference between cycloplegic and noncycloplegic refraction in young adult myopes.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>From the available literature, it is unclear whether cycloplegia is necessary when refracting young adults. This study investigates the agreement between noncycloplegic autorefraction and cycloplegic autorefraction and investigates factors affecting the agreement between the two methods.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In total, 125 myopes with ages ranging between 18 and 26 years were included from Australia and Vietnam. Each participant underwent noncycloplegic autorefraction and cycloplegic autorefraction. Cycloplegia was induced with 1% ophthalmic tropicamide.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean spherical equivalent difference (95% confidence interval) between noncycloplegic autorefraction and cycloplegic autorefraction was -0.20 D (-0.25 to -0.14 D; t124 = -7.18, p<0.0001 ) . A mean difference of >0.25 D was seen in 46.8% of eyes. The lower and upper limits of agreement were -0.80 and 0.41 D, respectively. With univariate analysis, factors including age, degree of refractive error, accommodation amplitude, and distance phorias showed no impact on the average difference between cycloplegic autorefraction and noncycloplegic autorefraction. Yet, eyes with near exophoria ( F2,120 = 6.63, p=0.0019) and Caucasian eyes ( F3,121 = 2.85, p=0.040) exhibited the smallest paired differences. However, in the multivariate analysis, only near exophoria was associated with a lower mean difference. A significantly smaller proportion (34.9%) of eyes with near exophoria had a paired difference of -0.25 D or more compared with esophoria (50%) and orthophoria (65%; χ2 = 6.6, p=0.038).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Noncycloplegic autorefraction results in more myopic refractive error than cycloplegic autorefraction in young adults.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19649,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Optometry and Vision Science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"470-476\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11462898/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Optometry and Vision Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000002169\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/5 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Optometry and Vision Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000002169","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison between cycloplegic and noncycloplegic refraction in young adult myopes.
Significance: This study explores the difference between cycloplegic and noncycloplegic refraction in young adult myopes.
Purpose: From the available literature, it is unclear whether cycloplegia is necessary when refracting young adults. This study investigates the agreement between noncycloplegic autorefraction and cycloplegic autorefraction and investigates factors affecting the agreement between the two methods.
Methods: In total, 125 myopes with ages ranging between 18 and 26 years were included from Australia and Vietnam. Each participant underwent noncycloplegic autorefraction and cycloplegic autorefraction. Cycloplegia was induced with 1% ophthalmic tropicamide.
Results: The mean spherical equivalent difference (95% confidence interval) between noncycloplegic autorefraction and cycloplegic autorefraction was -0.20 D (-0.25 to -0.14 D; t124 = -7.18, p<0.0001 ) . A mean difference of >0.25 D was seen in 46.8% of eyes. The lower and upper limits of agreement were -0.80 and 0.41 D, respectively. With univariate analysis, factors including age, degree of refractive error, accommodation amplitude, and distance phorias showed no impact on the average difference between cycloplegic autorefraction and noncycloplegic autorefraction. Yet, eyes with near exophoria ( F2,120 = 6.63, p=0.0019) and Caucasian eyes ( F3,121 = 2.85, p=0.040) exhibited the smallest paired differences. However, in the multivariate analysis, only near exophoria was associated with a lower mean difference. A significantly smaller proportion (34.9%) of eyes with near exophoria had a paired difference of -0.25 D or more compared with esophoria (50%) and orthophoria (65%; χ2 = 6.6, p=0.038).
Conclusions: Noncycloplegic autorefraction results in more myopic refractive error than cycloplegic autorefraction in young adults.
期刊介绍:
Optometry and Vision Science is the monthly peer-reviewed scientific publication of the American Academy of Optometry, publishing original research since 1924. Optometry and Vision Science is an internationally recognized source for education and information on current discoveries in optometry, physiological optics, vision science, and related fields. The journal considers original contributions that advance clinical practice, vision science, and public health. Authors should remember that the journal reaches readers worldwide and their submissions should be relevant and of interest to a broad audience. Topical priorities include, but are not limited to: clinical and laboratory research, evidence-based reviews, contact lenses, ocular growth and refractive error development, eye movements, visual function and perception, biology of the eye and ocular disease, epidemiology and public health, biomedical optics and instrumentation, novel and important clinical observations and treatments, and optometric education.