A comparison of the Plusoptix S09 with an autorefractometer of noncycloplegics and cycloplegics in children

Comparison of Spot Vision Screener and Tabletop Autorefractometer with Retinoscopy in the Pediatric Population

Objectives

Determining the accuracy of cycloplegic refractive error measurements made with the Spot Vision Screener (SVS, Welch Allyn Inc, Skaneateles Falls, NY, USA) is important for refractive assessment of uncooperative patients during optometric examinations. This study compared cycloplegic refractive errors measured by SVS and tabletop autorefractometer to cycloplegic retinoscopy in children.

Materials and Methods

Eighty-eight eyes of 44 subjects were examined in the study. Refractive error measurements were obtained under cycloplegia using retinoscopy, SVS, and Nidek ARK-530 tabletop autorefractometer (ARK-530, Nidek, Japan). Spherical and cylindrical values, spherical equivalents (SE), and Jackson cross-cylinder values at axes of 0° (J0) and 45° (J45) were recorded. Correlations between methods were analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis.

Results

The mean age was 7 years (range: 6 months-17 years). Sixteen (36%) of the subjects were female and 28 (64%) were male. For SE there was excellent agreement between retinoscopy and SVS (ICC: 0.924) and between retinoscopy and tabletop autorefractometer (ICC: 0.995). While there was a moderate correlation between retinoscopy and SVS for cylindrical values (ICC: 0.686), excellent correlation was detected between retinoscopy and autorefractometer (ICC: 0.966). J0 and J45 crosscylinder power values were not correlated between retinoscopy and SVS (ICC: 0.472) or retinoscopy and tabletop autorefractometer (ICC: 0.442). Retinoscopy was correlated with both SVS and tabletop autorefractometer for all parameters within ±1.96 standard deviations in Bland-Altman analysis.

Conclusion

Cycloplegic retinoscopy is the gold standard for refractive error measurement in the pediatric population. However, it requires time and experienced professionals. This study revealed moderate to good agreement between SVS and retinoscopy, with better agreement in spherical errors than cylindrical errors. Although the SVS is intended for screening programs, it may also be useful in the pediatric eye office to estimate spherical refractive error in uncooperative patients.

Agreement in non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic refraction between a photoscreener and a calibrated autorefractor

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.

Method comparison and overview of refractive measurements in children: implications for myopia management

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the agreement between objective wavefront-based refraction and subjective refraction in myopic children. It also assessed the impact of cyclopentolate and refraction levels on the agreement.

METHODS

A total of 84 eyes of myopic children aged 6-13 years were included in the analysis. Non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic objective wavefront-based refraction were determined and cycloplegic subjective refraction was performed for each participant. The data were converted into spherical equivalent, J0 and J45, and Bland-Altman plots were used to analyse the agreement between methods.

RESULTS

Linear functions were used to determine the dependency between the central myopic refractive error and the difference between the method of refraction (=bias). The influence of central myopia was not clinically relevant when analysing the agreement between wavefront results with and without cyclopentolate (comparison 1). The bias for wavefront-based minus subjective spherical equivalent refraction (comparison 2) was ≤-0.50 D (95% limits of agreement -0.010 D to -1.00 D) for myopia of -4.55 D and higher when cycloplegia was used (p<0.05). When no cyclopentolate was used for the wavefront-based refraction (comparison 3), the bias of -0.50 D (95% limits of agreement -0.020 D to -0.97 D) was already reached at a myopic error of -2.97 D. Both astigmatic components showed no clinically relevant bias.

CONCLUSION

The spherical equivalent, measured without cycloplegic agents, led to more myopic measurements when wavefront-based refraction was used. The observed bias increased with the amount of myopic refractive error for comparisons 2 and 3, which needs to be considered when interpreting wavefront-refraction data.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05288335.

Systematic review and meta-analysis on the agreement of non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic refraction in children

OBJECTIVE

To determine the diagnostic agreement of non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic refraction in children.

METHOD

The study methodology followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Electronic databases were searched for comparative studies exploring refraction performed on children under non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic conditions. There was no restriction on the year of publication; however, only publications in the English language were eligible. Inclusion criteria consisted of children aged ≤12 years, any degree or type of refractive error, either sex and no ocular or binocular co-morbidities. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias. Meta-analysis was conducted to synthesise data from all included studies. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were undertaken for those studies with a risk of bias.

RESULTS

Ten studies consisting of 2724 participants were eligible and included in the meta-analysis. The test for overall effect was not significant when comparing non-cycloplegic Plusoptix and cycloplegic autorefractors (Z = 0.34, p = 0.74). The pooled mean difference (MD) was -0.08 D (95% CI -0.54 D, +0.38 D) with a prediction interval of -1.72 D to +1.56 D. At less than 0.25 D, this indicates marginal overestimation of myopia and underestimation of hyperopia under non-cycloplegic conditions. When comparing non-cycloplegic autorefraction with a Retinomax and Canon autorefractor to cycloplegic refraction, a significant difference was found (Z = 9.79, p < 0.001) and (Z = 4.61, p < 0.001), respectively.

DISCUSSION

Non-cycloplegic Plusoptix is the most useful autorefractor for estimating refractive error in young children with low to moderate levels of hyperopia. Results also suggest that cycloplegic refraction must remain the test of choice when measuring refractive error ≤12 years of age. There were insufficient data to explore possible reasons for heterogeneity. Further research is needed to investigate the agreement between non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic refraction in relation to the type and level of refractive error at different ages.

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

BACKGROUND:

The preschool children hardly complain about their vision problems. It is of paramount importance to screen them with an objective tool and compare with the gold standard technique.

AIM:

To compare the values obtained with Plusoptix A09 and cycloplegic refraction in 3–6 years children and agreement to detect refractive amblyogenic risk factors.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS:

A cross-sectional study was conducted in the Outpatient Department of Ophthalmology in a tertiary care hospital. Informed consent from parents and verbal assent from children were obtained. Each subject had monocular vision assessment with Lea symbol chart, stereo acuity measurement with Frisby, refractive screening with Plusoptix A09, squint assessment, and anterior segment evaluation before administering Homatropine hydrobromide (homide) 2% eye drops. Cycloplegic refraction and posterior segment evaluation were performed for final diagnosis.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:

Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. Spearman correlation coefficient and kappa statistics were also employed.

RESULTS:

In total, data of 94 children were analyzed. The correlation values obtained between plusoptix and cyclorefraction values for spherical, cylindrical, spherical equivalent were 0.508 (P < 0.0001), 0.779 (P < 0.0001), and 0.407 (P < 0.0001), respectively. Refractive errors were seen in 32% and amblyopia in 17% of eyes. Kappa value was κ = 0.974 in detecting refractive amblyogenic risk factors.

CONCLUSION:

Good correlation was found between the plusoptix and cyclorefraction values. Cylindrical values showed a better correlation. Refractive errors and amblyopia were the major ocular disorders observed. There was significant agreement between the refractive techniques in detecting amblyogenic risk factors.

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

Purpose

We aimed to investigate whether the accuracy of the Plusoptix A09 photorefractor in children with ametropia is enhanced by cycloplegia with 1% tropicamide.

Methods

A total of 70 eyes (70 children) were retrospectively reviewed. Noncycloplegic photorefraction, cycloplegia with 1% tropicamide, cycloplegic photorefraction, and cycloplegic refraction with a tabletop autorefractometer were performed on all subjects in this order. Measurements were compared statistically.

Results

The mean age was 45.9 ± 11.4 months. The mean spherical equivalent (0.61 ± 1.03 diopters (D); range, −2.38 to 3.63 D) and mean spherical power (1.16 ± 0.92 D; range, −1.25 to 3.75 D) values that were acquired from the photorefraction without cycloplegia showed statistically significant differences from those of the autorefraction with cycloplegia (mean spherical equivalent = 1.00 ± 1.27 D; range, −1.50 to 4.25 D, mean spherical power = 1.60 ± 1.14; range, −1.25 to 4.50 D). The mean difference for the spherical equivalent was −0.39 ± 0.93 D (P=0.021; 95% limits of agreement (LoA) = −2.22 D to 1.44 D) and for spherical power was −0.44 ± 1.02 D (P=0.016; LoA = −2.44 D to 1.56 D). Without cycloplegia, Plusoptix A09 showed myopic shift, while after cycloplegia, it showed hyperopic shift. Spherical equivalent (mean difference (MD) ± SD = 0.78 ± 1.00 D, P < 0.001; LoA = −1.17 D to 2.72 D) and spherical power (MD ± SD = 0.73 ± 1.04 D, P < 0.001; LoA = −1.31 D to 2.77 D) values were significantly different from those of autorefraction with cycloplegia. Cylindrical power values obtained by photorefraction both with and without cycloplegia were not statistically different from those of autorefraction with cycloplegia (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

Cycloplegia with 1% tropicamide did not improve the accuracy of photorefraction using Plusoptix A09 in preschool children. The spherical equivalent and spherical power values obtained by photorefraction with cycloplegia were significantly higher from those obtained by autorefraction with cycloplegia.

Overestimation of hyperopia with autorefraction compared with retinoscopy under cycloplegia in school-age children

AIM

To compare sphere and cylinder refraction values using retinoscopy and autorefraction under cycloplegic conditions in children.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was carried out using multistage cluster sampling. The target population was children aged 6-12 years in Shahroud, a northern city in Iran. Examinations included measurements of visual acuity, subjective refraction and objective refraction. Objective refraction was measured with and without cycloplegia with a retinoscope and an autorefractometer.

RESULTS

After applying the exclusion criteria, data from 5053 children were analysed. Spherical refraction results with autorefraction were significantly higher than results with retinoscopy (P<0.001). Refraction overestimation was significant in all age groups (P<0.0001). Comparison of differences in different spherical ametropia subgroups also showed a significant intermethod difference in all refractive states (P<0. 01). Overall, autorefraction tended to over plus hyperopics and under minus myopic cases compared with retinoscopy. The 95% limits of agreement for spherical values measured with the two techniques were -0.35 Diopter (D) to 0.50 D. The values of J₀ and J₄₅ vectors with autorefraction were significantly higher than those with retinoscopy (P<0.001). The 95% limits of agreement between the two methods for vectors J₀ and J₄₅ were -0.12 D to 0.15 D and -0.10 D to 0.11 D, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Since the observed differences in spherical refraction and the cylindrical components obtained through retinoscopy and autorefraction are statistically significant, but clinically insignificant, and the two methods have a strong correlation and agreement, it can be concluded that autorefraction can be a suitable substitute for retinoscopy in children under cycloplegic conditions.

Difference of refraction values between standard autorefractometry and Plusoptix

Aim: Comparison between the objective refraction measurement results determined with Topcon KR-8900 standard autorefractometer and Plusoptix A09 photo-refractometer in children. Material and methods: A prospective transversal study was performed in the Department of Ophthalmology of "Sf. Spiridon" Hospital in Iași on 90 eyes of 45 pediatric patients, with a mean age of 8,82 ± 3,52 years, examined with noncycloplegic measurements provided by Plusoptix A09 and cycloplegic and noncycloplegic measurements provided by Topcon KR-8900 standard autorefractometer. The clinical parameters compared were the following: spherical equivalent (SE), spherical and cylindrical values, and cylinder axis. Astigmatism was recorded and evaluated with the cylindrical value on minus after transposition. The statistical calculation was performed with paired t-tests and Pearson's correlation analysis. All the data were analyzed with SPSS statistical package 19 (SPSS for Windows, Chicago, IL). Results: Plusoptix A09 noncycloplegic values were relatively equal between the eyes, with slightly lower values compared to noncycloplegic auto refractometry. Mean (± SD) measurements provided by Plusoptix AO9 were the following: spherical power 1.11 ± 1.52, cylindrical power 0.80 ± 0.80, and spherical equivalent 0.71 ± 1.39. The noncycloplegic auto refractometer mean (± SD) measurements were spherical power 1.12 ± 1.63, cylindrical power 0.79 ± 0,77 and spherical equivalent 0.71 ± 1.58. The cycloplegic auto refractometer mean (± SD) measurements were spherical power 2.08 ± 1.95, cylindrical power 0,82 ± 0.85 and spherical equivalent 1.68 ± 1.87. 32% of the eyes were hyperopic, 2.67% were myopic, 65.33% had astigmatism, and 30% eyes had amblyopia. Conclusions: Noncycloplegic objective refraction values were similar with those determined by autorefractometry. Plusoptix had an important role in the ophthalmological screening, but did not detect higher refractive errors, justifying the cycloplegic autorefractometry.