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。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Optometry and Vision Science Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-05 DOI:10.1097/OPX.0000000000002169
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

意义:目的:本研究探讨了青少年近视患者使用屈光环镜和不使用屈光环镜的区别:从现有文献来看,目前尚不清楚在对青少年进行屈光检查时是否有必要使用屈光环镜。本研究调查了非环镜自动屈光与环镜自动屈光之间的一致性,并调查了影响两种方法之间一致性的因素:共有 125 名来自澳大利亚和越南的 18 至 26 岁的近视眼患者参加了此次研究。每位受试者都接受了非环视自动屈光检查和环视自动屈光检查。结果:在46.8%的眼睛中,非环镜自动屈光度与环镜自动屈光度之间的平均球面等效差(95%置信区间)为-0.20 D(-0.25至-0.14 D;t124 = -7.18,p0.25 D)。一致的下限和上限分别为-0.80和0.41 D。单变量分析表明,年龄、屈光不正程度、调节幅度和远视角等因素对环视自动屈光度与非环视自动屈光度之间的平均差异没有影响。然而,近外斜眼(F2,120 = 6.63,p=0.0019)和白种人眼(F3,121 = 2.85,p=0.040)的配对差异最小。然而,在多变量分析中,只有近外斜与较低的平均差相关。与内斜视(50%)和正视(65%;χ2 = 6.6,p=0.038)相比,近外斜视眼睛中配对差异为-0.25 D或以上的比例明显较小(34.9%):结论:在年轻人中,非环镜自动屈光仪比环镜自动屈光仪导致更多的近视屈光不正。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

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
Optometry and Vision Science
Optometry and Vision Science 医学-眼科学
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
7.10%
发文量
210
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
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.
×
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