Literature DB >> 25709922

Comparison of non-cycloplegic photorefraction, cycloplegic photorefraction and cycloplegic retinoscopy in children.

Ozdemir Ozdemir1, Zuhal Özen Tunay1, Ikbal Seza Petriçli2, Damla Ergintürk Acar1, Muhammet Kazım Erol3.   

Abstract

AIM: To compare the results of noncycloplegic photorefraction, cycloplegic photorefraction and cycloplegic refraction in preschool and non-verbal children.
METHODS: One hundred and ninety-six eyes of 98 children (50 females, 48 males) were included in the study. Firstly, non-cycloplegic photorefraction was achieved with Plusoptix A09; secondly, cycloplegic photorefraction was carried out with Plusoptix A09 after 10 min cyclopentolate. Finally, 30min after instillation of twice cyclopentolate, cycloplegic refraction was obtained with autorefraction and/or standard retinoscopy. Spheric equivalent, spheric power, cylindric power and cylindrical axis measurements were statistically compared.
RESULTS: The mean age was 28.8±18.5mo (range 12-72mo). The differences in spherical equivalent, spheric power and cylindrical power measured by the three methods were found statistically significant (P<0.05). The spherical equivalent and spheric power measured by cycloplegic photorefraction were statistically higher than the measurements of the other methods (P<0.05). The cylindrical power measured by cycloplegic refraction was statistically lower than the measurements of the photorefraction methods (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in cylindrical axis measurements between three methods (P>0.05).
CONCLUSION: For the determination of refractive errors in children, the Plusoptix A09 measurements give incorrect results after instillation of cyclopentolate. Additionally, the cylindrical power measured by Plusoptix A09 with or without cycloplegia is higher. However, the non-cycloplegic Plusoptix A09 measures spheric equivalent and spheric power similar to cycloplegic refraction measurements in preschool and non-verbal children.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Plusoptix; cyclopentolate; cycloplegia; photorefraction; photoretinoscopy; refraction; retinoscopy

Year:  2015        PMID: 25709922      PMCID: PMC4325256          DOI: 10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2015.01.24

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol        ISSN: 2222-3959            Impact factor:   1.779


  15 in total

1.  Performance of the plusoptiX S04 photoscreener for the detection of amblyopia risk factors in children aged 3 to 5.

Authors:  Noelle S Matta; Eric L Singman; David I Silbert
Journal:  J AAPOS       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 1.220

2.  Evaluation of the measurement of refractive error by the PowerRefractor: a remote, continuous and binocular measurement system of oculomotor function.

Authors:  O A Hunt; J S Wolffsohn; B Gilmartin
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 4.638

3.  Screening for amblyopia risk factors in pre-verbal children using the Plusoptix photoscreener: a cross-sectional population-based study.

Authors:  Ali Akbar Saber Moghaddam; Abbas Kargozar; Mehran Zarei-Ghanavati; Marzieh Najjaran; Vahideh Nozari; Mohammad Taghi Shakeri
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2011-04-21       Impact factor: 4.638

4.  Accuracy of Plusoptix S04 in children and teens.

Authors:  Yilmaz Kiyak Ayse; Uretmen Onder; Kose Suheyla
Journal:  Can J Ophthalmol       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 1.882

5.  Accuracy of a new photo-refractometer in young and adult patients.

Authors:  Thilo Schimitzek; Wolf A Lagrèze
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2005-01-14       Impact factor: 3.117

6.  A comparison of patched HOTV visual acuity and photoscreening.

Authors:  Rachel Leman; Michelle M Clausen; Janice Bates; Lee Stark; Koni K Arnold; Robert W Arnold
Journal:  J Sch Nurs       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 2.835

7.  Comparison of preschool vision screening tests as administered by licensed eye care professionals in the Vision In Preschoolers Study.

Authors:  Paulette Schmidt; Maureen Maguire; Velma Dobson; Graham Quinn; Elise Ciner; Lynn Cyert; Marjean Taylor Kulp; Bruce Moore; Deborah Orel-Bixler; Maryann Redford; Gui-shuang Ying
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 12.079

8.  Performance of the Plusoptix vision screener for the detection of amblyopia risk factors in children.

Authors:  Noelle S Matta; Eric L Singman; David I Silbert
Journal:  J AAPOS       Date:  2008-06-05       Impact factor: 1.220

9.  Findings from the Vision in Preschoolers (VIP) Study.

Authors:  Marjean Taylor Kulp
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 1.973

10.  Is noncycloplegic photorefraction applicable for screening refractive amblyopia risk factors?

Authors:  Zhale Rajavi; Hiva Parsafar; Alireza Ramezani; Mehdi Yaseri
Journal:  J Ophthalmic Vis Res       Date:  2012-01
View more
  12 in total

1.  Performance of Plusoptix A09 Photo Screener in Refractive Error Screening in School Children Aged between 5 and 15 Years in the Southern Part of India.

Authors:  Avinash V Prabhu; Jyothi Thomas; Ramesh S Ve; Sayantan Biswas
Journal:  J Curr Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-07-04

2.  Difference of refraction values between standard autorefractometry and Plusoptix.

Authors:  Camelia Margareta Bogdănici; Codrina Maria Săndulache; Rodica Vasiliu; Otilia Obadă
Journal:  Rom J Ophthalmol       Date:  2016 Oct-Dec

3.  Analysis of suspected visual impairment risks based on objective refraction in 3-year-old children.

Authors:  Ryota Kabura; Tetsuji Takeshita; Xi Lu; Hikari Kawashita; Mayu Yasutake; Takahiko Katoh
Journal:  Jpn J Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-02-18       Impact factor: 2.447

4.  Agreement Between Retinoscopy, Autorefractometry and Subjective Refraction for Determining Refractive Errors in Congolese Children.

Authors:  Sabrina N Mukash; David L Kayembe; Jean-Claude Mwanza
Journal:  Clin Optom (Auckl)       Date:  2021-04-21

5.  Comparison of Autorefraction and Photorefraction with and without Cycloplegia Using 1% Tropicamide in Preschool Children.

Authors:  Ertuğrul Tan Yassa; Cihan Ünlü
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-05-02       Impact factor: 1.909

6.  Comparison between Plusoptix A09 and gold standard cycloplegic refraction in preschool children and agreement to detect refractive amblyogenic risk factors.

Authors:  Jyothi Thomas; B Rajashekar; Asha Kamath; Parikshit Gogate
Journal:  Oman J Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-02-27

7.  Comparison of Adult Refractive Disorder Measurements Using HandyRef-K, Retinomax, Plusoptix, and Table-top Autorefractometer Devices.

Authors:  Zeynep Seymen; Sinan Bekmez; Erdem Eris; Burcin Kepez Yildiz; Asli Vural; Tulin Ogreden; Irfan Perente
Journal:  Beyoglu Eye J       Date:  2021-06-08

8.  Pediatric vision screening using the plusoptiX A12C photoscreener in Chinese preschool children aged 3 to 4 years.

Authors:  Dan Huang; Xuejuan Chen; Xiaohan Zhang; Yue Wang; Hui Zhu; Hui Ding; Jing Bai; Ji Chen; Zhujun Fu; Zijin Wang; Hu Liu
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-05-17       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Ocular residual and corneal astigmatism in a clinical population of high school students.

Authors:  Zhao Chen; Luoru Liu; Chenglin Pan; Xiaoning Li; Lun Pan; Weizhong Lan; Zhikuan Yang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-04-09       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Are the results of handheld auto-refractometer as valid as the result of table-mounted refractometer?

Authors:  Ali Mirzajani; Fateme Qasemi; Amir Asharlous; Abbasali Yekta; Asgar Doostdar; Mehdi Khabazkhoob; Hassan Hashemi
Journal:  J Curr Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-11-22
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.