Dergiler / BEYOGLU EYE JOURNAL / 2021 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 1

Accuracy of Photorefraction and Wavefront-Based Autorefraction in Children Under 3 Years of Age

Sayfa
54–61
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Wavefront-based autorefraction performed with cycloplegia may be an alternative to cycloplegic retinoscopy, butneeds confirmation.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objectives: This study was designed to assess the accuracy of photorefraction and wavefront-based autorefraction in children under 3 years of age.Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed with children who had no ocular abnormalities other than a refractive error and were less than 3 years old.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The assessments were performed in terms of spherical equivalent (SE) values and Jackson cross-cylinder power values ( J0 and J45).Results: A total of 305 children with a mean age of 15.1±10.4 months were included.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Wavefront-based autorefraction performed with cycloplegia may be an alternative to cycloplegic retinoscopy, butneeds confirmation.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

Objectives: This study was designed to assess the accuracy of photorefraction and wavefront-based autorefraction in children under 3 years of age.Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed with children who had no ocular abnormalities other than a refractive error and were less than 3 years old. Spot Vision Screener (Welch Allyn Inc., Skaneateles Falls, NY, USA) was used forphotorefraction and SureSight Vision Screener (Welch Allyn, Skaneateles Falls, NY) was used for autorefraction. The measurements were performed with both devices before and after cycloplegia. The results were compared with those obtained using cycloplegic retinoscopy. The assessments were performed in terms of spherical equivalent (SE) values and Jackson cross-cylinder power values ( J0 and J45).Results: A total of 305 children with a mean age of 15.1±10.4 months were included. The mean SE values measured with the Spot Vision and SureSight before cycloplegia were 0.43±0.75 D and 0.90±0.86 D, respectively. Following cycloplegia,the mean SE values were 1.80±1.25 D and 1.55±1.40 D, respectively. The mean SE value obtained with cycloplegic retinoscopy was 1.53±1.34 D. The mean SE values measured with both devices prior to cycloplegia were significantly lower than that measured with cycloplegic retinoscopy (p<0.001). No significant difference was observed between the cycloplegic SE values obtained with SureSight and retinoscopy (p=0.66). Spot Vision yielded significantly higher cycloplegic SE values compared with cycloplegic retinoscopy (p<0.001).Conclusion: Both devices underestimated SE values in comparison with cycloplegic retinoscopy in children under 3 years of age. Wavefront-based autorefraction performed with cycloplegia may be an alternative to cycloplegic retinoscopy, butneeds confirmation.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

KARA, C., PETRİCLİ, İ. S. (2021). Accuracy of Photorefraction and Wavefront-Based Autorefraction in Children Under 3 Years of Age. BEYOGLU EYE JOURNAL, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 1, 54–61. https://ajindex.com/articles/353068

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (13)

  1. Webber AL, Wood J. Amblyopia: prevalence, natural history, func- tional effects and treatment. Clin Exp Optom 2005;88:365–75
  2. Kirk VG, Clausen MM, Armitage MD, Arnold RW. Preverbal photoscreening for amblyogenic factors and outcomes in amblyopia treatment: early objective screening and visual acuities. Arch Ophthalmol 2008;126:489–92
  3. Pascual M, Huang J, Maguire MG, Kulp MT, Quinn GE, Ciner E, et al; Vision In Preschoolers (VIP) Study Group. Risk factors for amblyopia in the vision in preschoolers study. Ophthalmology 2014;121:622–9.e1
  4. Harvey EM, Miller JM, Dobson V, Tyszko R, Davis AL. Measurement of refractive error in Native American preschoolers: validity and reproducibility of autorefraction. Optom Vis Sci 2000;77:140–9
  5. Zadnik K, Mutti DO, Adams AJ. The repeatability of measurement of the ocular components. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1992;33:2325–33
  6. Ottar WL, Scott WE, Holgado SI. Photoscreening for amblyogenic factors. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 1995;32:289–95
  7. Harvey EM, Miller JM, Wagner LK, Dobson V. Reproducibility and accuracy of measurements with a hand held autorefractor in children. Br J Ophthalmol 1997;81:941–8
  8. Sanchez I, Ortiz-Toquero S, Martin R, de Juan V. Advantag-es, limitations, and diagnostic accuracy of photoscreeners in early detection of amblyopia: a review. Clin Ophthalmol (Auckland, NZ) 2016;10:1365–73
  9. Ayse YK, Onder U, Suheyla K. Accuracy of Plusoptix S04 in children and teens. Can J Ophthalmol 2011;46:153–7
  10. Dahlmann-Noor AH, Comyn O, Kostakis V, Misra A, Gupta N, Heath J, et al. Plusoptix Vision Screener: the accuracy and repeatability of refractive measurements using a new autore fractor. Br J Ophthalmol 2009;93:346–9
  11. Demirci G, Arslan B, Özsütçü M, Eliaçık M, Gulkilik G. Comparison of photorefraction, autorefractometry and retinoscopy in children. Int Ophthalmol 2014;34:739–46
  12. Demirel S, Bilak Ş, Yuvacı İ, Cumurcu T, Çolak C. Objective measurement of refractive errors: Comparison of plusoptix s08 with a standard autorefractometer. J Clin Exp Invest 2013;4:40–6. 13. de Jesus DL, Villela FF, Orlandin LF, Eiji FN, Dantas DO, Alves MR. Comparison between refraction measured by Spot Vision ScreeningTM and subjective clinical refractometry. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 2016;71:69–72
  13. Mu Y, Bi H, Ekure E, Ding G, Wei N, Hua N, et al. Performance of spot photoscreener in detecting amblyopia risk factors in Chinese pre-school and school age children attending an eye clinic. PLoS One 2016;1