To assess the validity, differences and agreements among measurements of refractive status in school-aged children and adolescents using Goaleye RM-9000, Nidek AR-1 and Topcon RM-800. Methods: In this prospective study, 449 individuals (449 right eyes) aged from 9 to 18 from Eye Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University were measured in turns by the three autorefractors for their refractive status in random sequence from May to June, 2019. Then a professional optometrist conducted a subjective refraction for them by phoropter. All measurements by the three autorefractors were compared using a Friedman test, and measurements by the three autorefractors were compared with the subjective refraction respectively using Wilcoxon signed ranks test. Results: The median of spherical equivalent (SE) from Goaleye RM-9000, Nidek AR-1, Topcon RM-800 and the subjective refraction were -2.38(2.63)D,
-2.63(2.44)D, -2.75(2.56)D and -2.38(2.50)D, respectively. There were significant differences among the SE of the three autorefractors in the refraction measurement of school-aged children and adolescents (χ2 =384.893, P<0.001). There were no significant differences between the SE of Goaleye RM-9000 and subjective refraction (Z=-0.199, P=0.842), There were significant differences between the SE of Nidek AR-1 and subjective refraction (Z=-11.753, P<0.001), There were significant differences between the SE of Topcon RM-800 and subjective refraction (Z=-15.733, P<0.001). Conclusion: The measurements conducted by Goaleye RM-9000 and Nidek AR-1 were more accurate than by Topcon RM-800. There were significant differences among the results of the three autorefractors in the refraction measurement of school-aged children and adolescents.
Harvey EM, Miller JM, Schwiegerling J. Utility of an open field Shack-Hartmann aberrometer for measurement of refractive error in infants and young children. J AAPOS, 2013, 17(5): 494- 500. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaapos.2013.05.015.
[2]
He M, Xiang F, Zeng Y, et al. Effect of time spent outdoors at school on the development of myopia among children in China: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA, 2015, 314(11): 1142-1148. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2015.10803.
[3]
Dirani M, Chan YH, Gazzard G, et al. Prevalence of refractive error in Singaporean Chinese children: the strabismus, amblyopia and refractive error in young Singaporean children
Lai YH, Tseng HY, Hsu HT, et al. Uncorrected visual acuity and noncycloplegic autorefraction predict significant refractive errors in Taiwanese preschool children. Ophthalmology, 2013, 120(2): 271-276. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.08.009.
[5]
Lattimore MR Jr, Kaupp S, Schallhorn S, et a1. Orbscan pachymetry: implications of a repeated measures and diurnal variation analysis. Ophthalmology, 1999, 106(5): 977-981. DOI: 10.1016/S0161-6420(99)00519-9.
[6]
Read SA, Collins MJ. Diurnal variation of corneal shape and thickness. OptomVis Sci, 2009, 86(3): 170-180. DOI: 10.1097/ OPX.0b013e3181981b7e.
[7]
Morgan IG, Iribarren R, Fotouhi A, et al. Cycloplegic refraction is the gold standard for epidemiological studies. Acta Ophthalmol, 2015, 93(6): 581-585. DOI: 10.1111/aos.12642.
Zhao JL, Mao J, Luo R, et al. Accuracy of noncycloplegic autorefraction in school-age children in China. Optom Vis Sci, 2004, 81(1): 49-55.
[10]
Guha S, Shah S, Shah K, et al. A comparison of cycloplegic autorefraction and retinoscopy in Indian children. Clin Exp Optom, 2017, 100(1): 73-78. DOI: 10.1111/cxo.12375.
[11]
ChoongYF, Chen AH, Goh PP. A comparison of autorefraction and subjective refraction with and without cycloplegia in primary school children. Am J Ophthalmol, 2006, 142(1): 68-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2006.01.084.
[12]
Pesudovs K, Weisinger HS. A comparison of autorefractor performance. Optom Vis Sci, 2004, 81(7): 554-558.
[13]
Xiong SY, Lv MZ, Zou HD, et al. Comparison of refractive measures of three autorefractors in children and adolescents. Optom Vis Sci, 2017, 94(9): 894-902. DOI: 10.1097/OPX.
浙公网安备 33030202001892号