Agreement and Repeatability of Noncycloplegic and Cycloplegic Wavefront-based Autorefraction in Children.
Aberrometry
Accommodation, Ocular
/ physiology
Adolescent
Child
Child, Preschool
Corneal Wavefront Aberration
/ physiopathology
Female
Humans
Male
Mydriatics
/ administration & dosage
Pupil
/ drug effects
Refraction, Ocular
/ physiology
Reproducibility of Results
Retinoscopy
Tropicamide
/ administration & dosage
Journal
Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry
ISSN: 1538-9235
Titre abrégé: Optom Vis Sci
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8904931
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2019
11 2019
Historique:
entrez:
9
11
2019
pubmed:
9
11
2019
medline:
7
3
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Increasing prevalence of refractive error requires assessment of ametropia as a screening tool in children. If cycloplegia is not an option, knowledge about the increase in uncertainty for wavefront-based autorefraction is needed. The cycloplegic agent as the principal variant presents cross-reference and allows for extraction of the influence of accommodation. The purpose of this study was to determine the repeatability, agreement, and propensity to accommodate of cycloplegic (ARc) and noncycloplegic (ARnc) wavefront-based autorefraction (ZEISS i.Profiler plus; Carl Zeiss Vision, Aalen, Germany) in children aged 2 to 15 years. In a clinical setting, three consecutive measurements were feasible for 145 eyes (OD) under both conditions. Data are described by spherical equivalent (M), horizontal or vertical astigmatic component (J0), and oblique astigmatic component (J45). In the case of M, the most positive value of the three measurements was chosen, whereas the mean was applied for astigmatic components. Regarding agreement, differences for ARc minus ARnc were statistically significant: for M, 0.55 (0.55 D; mean [SD]; P < .001), that is, more hyperopic in cycloplegia; for J0, -0.03 (0.11 D; P = .002); and for J45, -0.03 D (SD, 0.09 D; P < .001). Regarding repeatability, astigmatic components showed excellent repeatability: SD < 0.11 D (ARnc) and SD < 0.09 D (ARc). The repeatability of M was SD = 0.57 D with a 95% interval of 1.49 D (ARnc). Under cycloplegia, this decreased to SD = 0.17 D (ARc) with a 95% interval of 0.50 D. The mean propensity to accommodate was 0.44 D from repeated measurements; in cycloplegia, this was reduced to 0.19 D. Wavefront-based refraction measurement results are highly repeatable and precise for astigmatic components. Noncycloplegic measurements of M show a systematic bias of 0.55 D. Cycloplegia reduces the propensity to accommodate by a factor of 2.4; for noncycloplegic repeated measurements, accommodation is controlled to a total interval of 1.49 D (95%). Without cycloplegia, results improve drastically when measurements are repeated.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31703049
doi: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000001444
pii: 00006324-201911000-00010
pmc: PMC6855388
doi:
Substances chimiques
Mydriatics
0
Tropicamide
N0A3Z5XTC6
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
879-889Références
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002 Dec;28(12):2135-41
pubmed: 12498848
Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2007 Mar-Apr;51(2):111-5
pubmed: 17401620
J Optom. 2018 Jul - Sep;11(3):135-143
pubmed: 29132914
Optom Vis Sci. 2000 Mar;77(3):140-9
pubmed: 10772231
Optom Vis Sci. 2000 Oct;77(10):537-48
pubmed: 11100892
Optom Vis Sci. 2006 Nov;83(11):811-7
pubmed: 17106401
Am J Ophthalmol. 2007 Aug;144(2):307-9
pubmed: 17659966
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1994 Feb;35(2):515-27
pubmed: 8113002
Klin Oczna. 2012;114(4):278-81
pubmed: 23461155
J Physiol. 1993 Feb;461:301-20
pubmed: 8350267
Optom Vis Sci. 1997 Jun;74(6):367-75
pubmed: 9255814
Br J Ophthalmol. 1999 Feb;83(2):157-61
pubmed: 10396190
PLoS One. 2015 Feb 06;10(2):e0117482
pubmed: 25658329
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005 May;159(5):435-9
pubmed: 15867116
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014 Mar 06;55(3):1378-85
pubmed: 24481262
Br J Ophthalmol. 2009 Mar;93(3):346-9
pubmed: 19001013
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003 Dec;29(12):2295-301
pubmed: 14709289
Optom Vis Sci. 2003 Jan;80(1):6-14
pubmed: 12553539
Stat Methods Med Res. 1999 Jun;8(2):135-60
pubmed: 10501650
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2007 May;27(3):275-80
pubmed: 17470240
J AAPOS. 2013 Oct;17(5):494-500
pubmed: 24160970
J Refract Surg. 2000 Sep-Oct;16(5):S570-1
pubmed: 11019875
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011 Dec 28;52(13):9658-64
pubmed: 22125281
Optometry. 2005 Aug;76(8):461-72
pubmed: 16150413
Optom Vis Sci. 2007 May;84(5):387-92
pubmed: 17502821
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2002 Nov;22(6):546-51
pubmed: 12477019
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Apr;31(4):466-75
pubmed: 18306169
Br J Ophthalmol. 1997 Nov;81(11):941-8
pubmed: 9505815
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1990 Jul;10(3):252-6
pubmed: 2216473
Optom Vis Sci. 2017 Feb;94(2):159-165
pubmed: 27668640
Ophthalmology. 2006 Apr;113(4):577.e1-2
pubmed: 16527354
Acta Ophthalmol. 2014 Sep;92(6):e458-62
pubmed: 24641244
Optom Vis Sci. 2014 Oct;91(10):1191-8
pubmed: 25198541
Acta Ophthalmol. 2012 Jun;90(4):380-6
pubmed: 20977697
Optom Vis Sci. 2015 Dec;92(12):1133-9
pubmed: 26540478
Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2004 Oct;32(5):462-7
pubmed: 15498055