Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Method comparison and overview of refractive measurements in children: implications for myopia management.
Müller, Jonas; Chen, Xiaoqin; Ohlendorf, Arne; Li, Lihua; Wahl, Siegfried.
Afiliación
  • Müller J; Institute for Ophthalmic Research, Eberhard Karls University Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany jona.mueller@uni-tuebingen.de.
  • Chen X; Tianjin Eye Institute, Tianjin Eye Hospital, Tianjin, China.
  • Ohlendorf A; Institute for Ophthalmic Research, Eberhard Karls University Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.
  • Li L; Carl Zeiss Vision International GmbH, Aalen, Germany.
  • Wahl S; Tianjin Eye Institute, Tianjin Eye Hospital, Tianjin, China.
BMJ Open Ophthalmol ; 9(1)2024 Mar 01.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38429067
ABSTRACT

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.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Errores de Refracción / Miopía Límite: Child / Humans Idioma: En Revista: BMJ Open Ophthalmol Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Alemania Pais de publicación: Reino Unido

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Errores de Refracción / Miopía Límite: Child / Humans Idioma: En Revista: BMJ Open Ophthalmol Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Alemania Pais de publicación: Reino Unido