Agreement in non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic refraction between a photoscreener and a calibrated autorefractor
Abstract Introduction Photoscreeners have been shown to provide excellent measurements of the refractive error. However, whether they could be used for assessing cycloplegic refraction has not been examied. This study aimed to evaluate the agreement between cycloplegic and non-cycloplegic measuremen...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2024-03-01
|
| Series: | BMC Ophthalmology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-024-03375-z |
| _version_ | 1797233725686153216 |
|---|---|
| author | Piotr Kanclerz Katarzyna Przewłócka Robert W. Arnold |
| author_facet | Piotr Kanclerz Katarzyna Przewłócka Robert W. Arnold |
| author_sort | Piotr Kanclerz |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Introduction Photoscreeners have been shown to provide excellent measurements of the refractive error. However, whether they could be used for assessing cycloplegic refraction has not been examied. This study aimed to evaluate the agreement between cycloplegic and non-cycloplegic measurements obtained using a photoscreener and stationary autorefractor, respectively. Methods This study included all patients undergoing routine ophthalmic examination at the Hygeia Clinic (Poland) from June to July 2022. Each patient underwent non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic refraction assessments using the 2WIN photoscreener (Adaptica SRL, Padova, Italy) and an ARK-1 stationary autorefractor ARK-1 (Nidek Co Ltd., Tokyo, Japan), respectively. Each pair of assessments was conducted in random order, and all values were determined at a vertical distance of 12 mm. The agreement between cycloplegic and non-cycloplegic measurements was assessed using paired t-tests, Bland-Altman and ABCD ellipsoids. Results This analysis included 82 patients, of which 52 were female. Their mean age was 34.39 ± 13.13 years. The non-cycloplegic spherical equivalent (SE) did not differ significantly between the 2WIN (− 1.22 ± 2.45) and ARK-1 (− 1.19 ± 2.96) devices (p = 0.580). However, the cycloplegic SE values demonstrated more negative values with the 2WIN device (− 1.13 ± 2.19) than with the ARK-1 device (− 0.75 ± 3.03; p = 0.007). The non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic measurements were strongly correlated between the devices (r = 0.9473 and 0.9411, respectively). However, the correlation between their cycloplegic shifts in SE was low (r = 0.2645). Ellipsoid refraction aligned better non-cycloplegic (ARK-1 = 1.00; 2WIN = 1.74) than with cycloplegic refraction (ARK-1 = 1.43; 2WIN = 1.90). Conclusion While the cycloplegic measurements obtained with the 2WIN photoscreener were strongly correlated with those obtained with the ARK-1 stationary autorefractor for most of the analyzed parameters, they should not be considered interchangeable. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-24T16:20:44Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-277ac68643c643b4bc69e316839f6503 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1471-2415 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-24T16:20:44Z |
| publishDate | 2024-03-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMC Ophthalmology |
| spelling | doaj.art-277ac68643c643b4bc69e316839f65032024-03-31T11:13:16ZengBMCBMC Ophthalmology1471-24152024-03-012411810.1186/s12886-024-03375-zAgreement in non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic refraction between a photoscreener and a calibrated autorefractorPiotr Kanclerz0Katarzyna Przewłócka1Robert W. Arnold2Helsinki Retina Research Group, University of HelsinkiHygeia Clinic, Department of OphthalmologyAlaska Blind Child DiscoveryAbstract Introduction Photoscreeners have been shown to provide excellent measurements of the refractive error. However, whether they could be used for assessing cycloplegic refraction has not been examied. This study aimed to evaluate the agreement between cycloplegic and non-cycloplegic measurements obtained using a photoscreener and stationary autorefractor, respectively. Methods This study included all patients undergoing routine ophthalmic examination at the Hygeia Clinic (Poland) from June to July 2022. Each patient underwent non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic refraction assessments using the 2WIN photoscreener (Adaptica SRL, Padova, Italy) and an ARK-1 stationary autorefractor ARK-1 (Nidek Co Ltd., Tokyo, Japan), respectively. Each pair of assessments was conducted in random order, and all values were determined at a vertical distance of 12 mm. The agreement between cycloplegic and non-cycloplegic measurements was assessed using paired t-tests, Bland-Altman and ABCD ellipsoids. Results This analysis included 82 patients, of which 52 were female. Their mean age was 34.39 ± 13.13 years. The non-cycloplegic spherical equivalent (SE) did not differ significantly between the 2WIN (− 1.22 ± 2.45) and ARK-1 (− 1.19 ± 2.96) devices (p = 0.580). However, the cycloplegic SE values demonstrated more negative values with the 2WIN device (− 1.13 ± 2.19) than with the ARK-1 device (− 0.75 ± 3.03; p = 0.007). The non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic measurements were strongly correlated between the devices (r = 0.9473 and 0.9411, respectively). However, the correlation between their cycloplegic shifts in SE was low (r = 0.2645). Ellipsoid refraction aligned better non-cycloplegic (ARK-1 = 1.00; 2WIN = 1.74) than with cycloplegic refraction (ARK-1 = 1.43; 2WIN = 1.90). Conclusion While the cycloplegic measurements obtained with the 2WIN photoscreener were strongly correlated with those obtained with the ARK-1 stationary autorefractor for most of the analyzed parameters, they should not be considered interchangeable.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-024-03375-zAutorefractometryCycloplegic measurementsPhotoscreenersRefractive errors |
| spellingShingle | Piotr Kanclerz Katarzyna Przewłócka Robert W. Arnold Agreement in non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic refraction between a photoscreener and a calibrated autorefractor BMC Ophthalmology Autorefractometry Cycloplegic measurements Photoscreeners Refractive errors |
| title | Agreement in non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic refraction between a photoscreener and a calibrated autorefractor |
| title_full | Agreement in non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic refraction between a photoscreener and a calibrated autorefractor |
| title_fullStr | Agreement in non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic refraction between a photoscreener and a calibrated autorefractor |
| title_full_unstemmed | Agreement in non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic refraction between a photoscreener and a calibrated autorefractor |
| title_short | Agreement in non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic refraction between a photoscreener and a calibrated autorefractor |
| title_sort | agreement in non cycloplegic and cycloplegic refraction between a photoscreener and a calibrated autorefractor |
| topic | Autorefractometry Cycloplegic measurements Photoscreeners Refractive errors |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-024-03375-z |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT piotrkanclerz agreementinnoncycloplegicandcycloplegicrefractionbetweenaphotoscreenerandacalibratedautorefractor AT katarzynaprzewłocka agreementinnoncycloplegicandcycloplegicrefractionbetweenaphotoscreenerandacalibratedautorefractor AT robertwarnold agreementinnoncycloplegicandcycloplegicrefractionbetweenaphotoscreenerandacalibratedautorefractor |