PURPOSE: To compare the results of different refractive error measurement devices including table-mounted and hand-held autorefractors and videoretinoscopy with cycloplegic retinoscopy (CR) in children to evaluate the usability and reliability of these devices in measuring refractive errors. METHODS: Two hundred eyes of 100 children underwent autorefraction using table-mounted autorefractor with and without cycloplegia and videoretinoscopy after cycloplegia. All results were compared statistically. RESULTS: The mean spheric values (SV) and spherical equivalent values (SEV) of the non-cycloplegic table-mounted autorefractor were found to be significantly lower and those of the cycloplegic table-mounted autorefractor were found to be significantly higher than CR results. There was no statistically significant difference in terms of mean SV and SEV between the hand-held autorefractor and CR. Although the mean SV using videoretinoscopy were 0.15 diopters lower than CR, this difference was not significant. Comparing CR with the other refraction methods, all devices correlated with each other. Sensitivity in diagnosing myopia was low for all methods but sensitivity in diagnosing hyperopia and astigmatism was high for table-mounted and hand-held autorefractors. The other reliability parameters were found to be similar for all devices. CONCLUSIONS: Both videoretinoscopy and hand-held autorefractor can be used in both screening and examination for children as an alternative to CR and table-mounted autorefractor. Copyright 2012, SLACK Incorporated.
PURPOSE: To compare the results of different refractive error measurement devices including table-mounted and hand-held autorefractors and videoretinoscopy with cycloplegic retinoscopy (CR) in children to evaluate the usability and reliability of these devices in measuring refractive errors. METHODS: Two hundred eyes of 100 children underwent autorefraction using table-mounted autorefractor with and without cycloplegia and videoretinoscopy after cycloplegia. All results were compared statistically. RESULTS: The mean spheric values (SV) and spherical equivalent values (SEV) of the non-cycloplegic table-mounted autorefractor were found to be significantly lower and those of the cycloplegic table-mounted autorefractor were found to be significantly higher than CR results. There was no statistically significant difference in terms of mean SV and SEV between the hand-held autorefractor and CR. Although the mean SV using videoretinoscopy were 0.15 diopters lower than CR, this difference was not significant. Comparing CR with the other refraction methods, all devices correlated with each other. Sensitivity in diagnosing myopia was low for all methods but sensitivity in diagnosing hyperopia and astigmatism was high for table-mounted and hand-held autorefractors. The other reliability parameters were found to be similar for all devices. CONCLUSIONS: Both videoretinoscopy and hand-held autorefractor can be used in both screening and examination for children as an alternative to CR and table-mounted autorefractor. Copyright 2012, SLACK Incorporated.
Authors: Ana M Calvo-Maroto; Sara Llorente-González; Jaione Bezunartea-Bezunartea; Francisco Javier Hurtado-Ceña; Clara Berrozpe-Villabona; Valentina Bilbao-Malavé; David P Piñero; Jesús Barrio-Barrio; Sergio Recalde-Maestre Journal: Children (Basel) Date: 2022-01-09