A comparison of autorefraction and subjective refraction with and without cycloplegia in primary school children
A comparison of autorefraction and subjective refraction with and without cycloplegia in primary school children
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ajo.2006.01.084
复制
发表时间：
2006-07-01
影响因子：
4.2
通讯作者：
Goh, Pik-Pin
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Choong, Yee-Fong;Chen, Ai-Hong;Goh, Pik-Pin
目得：评价三种自动验光仪与主观验光在儿童屈光不正诊断中的准确性。设计：横断面研究。研究对象：117名小学生。程序：所有受试者均使用三台自动验光仪进行自动验光，并在有和无睫状肌麻痹的情况下进行主观验光。主要观察指标：结果：在不使用睫状肌麻痹剂的情况下，使用Retinomax K plus 2的平均SE显著不同（-1.55屈光度，SD 2.37屈光度; 95% CI -1.98至-1.12; P < .0001）和Canon RF 10（-1.11屈光度; SD 2.61屈光度; 95% CI -1.59至-0.64; P = .0023）与单眼主观验光（-0.80屈光度; SD 2.25屈光度; 95% CI -1.21至-0.35）相比。Grand Seiko WR 5100 K的平均SE（-0.79屈光度; SD 2.40屈光度; 95% CI -1.23至-0.35; P = .0002）与双眼主观验光（-0.62屈光度; SD 2.51屈光度; 95% CI -1.07至-0.16）相比存在显著差异。对于睫状肌麻痹，两种验光方法的平均SE没有显着差异。近视诊断的灵敏度和特异性结果：无睫状肌麻痹：Retinomax K plus 2（灵敏度1.0，特异性0.51）; Canon RF 10（灵敏度0.92，特异性0.81）;和Grand Seiko WR 5100 K（灵敏度0.91，特异性0.98）。使用睫状肌麻痹：Retinomax K plus 2（灵敏度0.97，特异性0.99）; Canon RF 10（灵敏度0.97，特异性0.96）; Grand Seiko WR 5100 K（灵敏度1.0，特异性0.97）。结论：在非睫状肌麻痹条件下，所有三种自动验光仪在儿童中具有负过度矫正的趋势，导致近视的过度诊断。然而，自动验光仪在睫状肌麻痹条件下是准确的。
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of autorefraction using three autorefractors comparing to subjective refraction in diagnosing refractive error in children.DESIGN: A cross-sectional study.METHODS: SETTING: Community based study. STUDY POPULATION: 117 children sampled from primary schools. PROCEDURES: All subjects underwent autorefraction using three auto refractors and subjective refraction with and without cycloplegia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Spherical power, cylindrical power, and spherical equivalence (SE).RESULTS: Without cycloplegia, the mean SE were significantly different for Retinomax K plus 2 (-1.55 diopters, SD 2.37 diopters; 95% CI -1.98 to -1.12; P < .0001) and Canon RF10 (-1.11 diopters; SD 2.61 diopters; 95% CI -1.59 to -0.64; P = .0023) compared with monocular subjective refraction (-0.80 diopters; SD 2.25 diopters; 95% CI -1.21 to -0.35). Mean SE was significantly different for Grand Seiko WR5100K (-0.79 diopters; SD 2.40 diopters; 95% CI -1.23 to -0.35; P = .0002) compared with binocular subjective refraction (-0.62 diopters; SD 2.51 diopters; 95% CI -1.07 to -0.16). With cycloplegia, there was no significant difference in mean SE between refraction methods. Sensitivity and specificity results for the diagnosis of myopia: Without cycloplegia: Retinomax K plus 2 (sensitivity 1.0, specificity 0.51); Canon RF10 (sensitivity 0.92, specificity 0.81); and Grand Seiko WR5100K (sensitivity 0.91, specificity 0.98). With cycloplegia: Retinomax K plus 2 (sensitivity 0.97, specificity 0.99); Canon RF10 (sensitivity 0.97, specificity 0.96); and Grand Seiko WR5100K (sensitivity 1.0, specificity 0.97).CONCLUSIONS: Under noncycloplegic conditions, all three autorefractors have a tendency towards minus over correction in children resulting in over diagnosis of myopia. However autorefractors were accurate under cycloplegic conditions.