Gui-Shuang Ying1, Maureen G Maguire2, Marjean Taylor Kulp3, Elise Ciner4, Bruce Moore5, Maxwell Pistilli2, Rowan Candy6. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: gsying@mail.med.upenn.edu. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. The Ohio State University, College of Optometry, Columbus, Ohio. 4. Salus University, Pennsylvania College of Optometry, Elkins Park, Pennsylvania. 5. New England College of Optometry, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Indiana University, School of Optometry, Bloomington, Indiana.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the agreement of cycloplegic refractive error measures between the Grand Seiko and Retinomax autorefractors in 4- and 5-year-old children. METHODS: Cycloplegic refractive error of children was measured using the Grand Seiko and Retinomax during a comprehensive eye examination. Accommodative error was measured using the Grand Seiko. The differences in sphere, cylinder, spherical equivalent (SE) and intereye vector dioptric distance (VDD) between autorefractors were assessed using the Bland-Altman plot and 95% limits of agreement (95% LoA). RESULTS: A total of 702 examinations were included. Compared to the Retinomax, the Grand Seiko provided statistically significantly larger values of sphere (mean difference, 0.34 D; 95% LoA, -0.46 to 1.14 D), SE (mean, 0.25 D; 95% LoA, -0.55 to 1.05 D), VDD (mean, 0.19 D; 95% LoA, -0.67 to 1.05 D), and more cylinder (mean, -0.18 D; 95% LoA, -0.91 to 0.55 D). The Grand Seiko measured ≥0.5 D than Retinomax in 43.1% of eyes for sphere and 29.8% of eyes for SE. In multivariate analysis, eyes with SE of >4 D (based on the average of two autorefractors) had larger differences in sphere (mean, 0.66 D vs 0.35 D; P < 0.0001) and SE (0.57 D vs 0.26 D; P < 0.0001) than eyes with SE of ≤4 D. CONCLUSIONS: Under cycloplegia, the Grand Seiko provided higher measures of sphere, more cylinder, and higher SE than the Retinomax. Higher refractive error was associated with larger differences in sphere and SE between the Grand Seiko and Retinomax.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the agreement of cycloplegic refractive error measures between the Grand Seiko and Retinomax autorefractors in 4- and 5-year-old children. METHODS: Cycloplegic refractive error of children was measured using the Grand Seiko and Retinomax during a comprehensive eye examination. Accommodative error was measured using the Grand Seiko. The differences in sphere, cylinder, spherical equivalent (SE) and intereye vector dioptric distance (VDD) between autorefractors were assessed using the Bland-Altman plot and 95% limits of agreement (95% LoA). RESULTS: A total of 702 examinations were included. Compared to the Retinomax, the Grand Seiko provided statistically significantly larger values of sphere (mean difference, 0.34 D; 95% LoA, -0.46 to 1.14 D), SE (mean, 0.25 D; 95% LoA, -0.55 to 1.05 D), VDD (mean, 0.19 D; 95% LoA, -0.67 to 1.05 D), and more cylinder (mean, -0.18 D; 95% LoA, -0.91 to 0.55 D). The Grand Seiko measured ≥0.5 D than Retinomax in 43.1% of eyes for sphere and 29.8% of eyes for SE. In multivariate analysis, eyes with SE of >4 D (based on the average of two autorefractors) had larger differences in sphere (mean, 0.66 D vs 0.35 D; P < 0.0001) and SE (0.57 D vs 0.26 D; P < 0.0001) than eyes with SE of ≤4 D. CONCLUSIONS: Under cycloplegia, the Grand Seiko provided higher measures of sphere, more cylinder, and higher SE than the Retinomax. Higher refractive error was associated with larger differences in sphere and SE between the Grand Seiko and Retinomax.
Authors: P S Moke; A H Turpin; R W Beck; J M Holmes; M X Repka; E E Birch; R W Hertle; R T Kraker; J M Miller; C A Johnson Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Mark S Borchert; Rohit Varma; Susan A Cotter; Kristina Tarczy-Hornoch; Roberta McKean-Cowdin; Jesse H Lin; Ge Wen; Stanley P Azen; Mina Torres; James M Tielsch; David S Friedman; Michael X Repka; Joanne Katz; Josephine Ibironke; Lydia Giordano Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2011-08-19 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Lydia Giordano; David S Friedman; Michael X Repka; Joanne Katz; Josephine Ibironke; Patricia Hawes; James M Tielsch Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2009-02-25 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Andrew Carkeet; Shajan Velaedan; Yong Kang Tan; Derrick Yu Jiang Lee; Donald T H Tan Journal: J Refract Surg Date: 2003 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Francesco Semeraro; Eliana Forbice; Giuseppe Nascimbeni; Salvatore Cillino; Vincenza Maria Elena Bonfiglio; Maria Elena Filippelli; Silvia Bartollino; Ciro Costagliola Journal: Front Pediatr Date: 2020-01-29 Impact factor: 3.418