便携式、低成本自动折射镜在巴西东北部眼科护理机会有限的学生中的应用评估。

IF 1.8 Q2 Medicine
Francisco Carlos de Castro Neto, Ricardo Noguera Louzada, Daniel Oliveira Dantas, Dillan Cunha Amaral, Claudio do Carmo Chaves Filho, Milton Ruiz Alves
{"title":"便携式、低成本自动折射镜在巴西东北部眼科护理机会有限的学生中的应用评估。","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":1.8000,"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":"{\"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\":1.8000,\"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}","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

摘要

本研究比较了ClickCheck™设备(CCD)、Topcon KR-8000和主观临床屈光仪(SCR)在巴西公立学校获得眼科保健机会有限的学生中的屈光测量结果。使用CCD、Topcon KR-8000和SCR方法对87只7 ~ 17岁的健康学生的眼睛进行了屈光检查,仅分析了右眼数据。为了比较,测量结果被转换成球形当量(SEs)和矢量量级。CCD与Topcon dr -8000的平均SE差为-0.27±0.58 (p < 0.0001),而90°和135°经络的矢量幅度分别为-0.23±0.55 (p = 0.0001)和+0.04±0.47 (p = 0.2246),无临床相关性。同样,CCD和SCR的平均SE差为-0.18±0.58 (p = 0.065), 90°时矢量幅度为-0.20±0.50 (p = 0.0003), 135°时矢量幅度为+0.03±0.46 (p = 0.3730),也缺乏临床相关性。尽管两种方法之间存在统计学上的显著差异,但研究结果证实了强烈的一致性,证实CCD是低资源环境下儿童屈光评估的有效工具。这些方法可以增加服务不足人群获得屈光服务的机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of Portable, Low-Cost Autorefractor in School Students with Limited Eye Care Access in Northeastern Brazil.

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.

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
Vision (Switzerland)
Vision (Switzerland) Health Professions-Optometry
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
62
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
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