Comparison of Refractive Measures of Three Autorefractors in Children and Adolescents.

Significance: Our study found a good agreement between three autorefractors. Not only will readers benefit as they can now compare data measured with either device in different studies but the three devices can be used in the same study to generate one pool of data, which can be analyzed together.Pu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Optometry & Vision Science Vol. 94; no. 9; pp. 894 - 903
Autores principales: Shuyu Xiong, Minzhi Lv, Haidong Zou, Jianfeng Zhu, Lina Lu, Bo Zhang, Junjie Deng, Chunxia Yao, Xiangui He, Xun Xu, Xiong, Shuyu, Lv, Minzhi, Zou, Haidong, Zhu, Jianfeng, Lu, Lina, Zhang, Bo, Deng, Junjie, Yao, Chunxia, He, Xiangui, Xu, Xun
Formato: research Journal Article
Publicado: Wiley-Blackwell Sep2017
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=124960899&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 124960899
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        10405488
        1X24
      jtl: Optometry & Vision Science
      issn: 10405488
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Sep2017
      vid: 94
      iid: 9
      pid: 480
      pub: Wiley-Blackwell
      place: Malden, Massachusetts
    artinfo:
      ui:
        124960899
        124960899
        NLM28816868
        124960899
        10.1097/OPX.0000000000001113
        NLM28816868
        124960899
      ppf: 894
      ppct: 9
      formats:
      tig:
        atl: Comparison of Refractive Measures of Three Autorefractors in Children and Adolescents.
      aug:
        au:
          Shuyu Xiong
          Minzhi Lv
          Haidong Zou
          Jianfeng Zhu
          Lina Lu
          Bo Zhang
          Junjie Deng
          Chunxia Yao
          Xiangui He
          Xun Xu
          Xiong, Shuyu
          Lv, Minzhi
          Zou, Haidong
          Zhu, Jianfeng
          Lu, Lina
          Zhang, Bo
          Deng, Junjie
          Yao, Chunxia
          He, Xiangui
          Xu, Xun
        affil: Department of Preventative Ophthalmology, Shanghai Eye Disease Prevention and Treatment Center, Shanghai Eye Hospital, Shanghai, China
      sug:
        subj:
          Refractive Errors Diagnosis
          Refraction, Ocular
          Vision Tests Methods
          Male
          Human
          Adolescence
          Female
          Refractive Errors Physiopathology
          Child, Preschool
          Reproducibility of Results
          Child
          Validation Studies
          Comparative Studies
          Evaluation Research
          Multicenter Studies
          Adolescent: 13-18 years
          Child, Preschool: 2-5 years
          Child: 6-12 years
          Male
          Female
      ab: Significance: Our study found a good agreement between three autorefractors. Not only will readers benefit as they can now compare data measured with either device in different studies but the three devices can be used in the same study to generate one pool of data, which can be analyzed together.Purpose: The present study aims to evaluate the agreement of three commonly used autorefractors in children and adolescents, and the potential for their interchangeable application in a large-scale study.Methods: Participants from seven schools were enrolled using cluster sampling. Refractive errors were measured using the following three autorefractors under cycloplegic conditions in random sequence: Topcon KR-8900, Nidek ARK-510A, and Huvitz HRK-7000A. Refractive errors were compared in terms of spherical equivalent refraction (SER), cylinder power, and the J0 and J45 by repeated-measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) and Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement (95% LoA).Results: A total of 2072 participants aged from 4 to 18 years were included. The mean ± SD and 95% LoA of the differences in SER between Topcon and Nidek, Topcon and Huvitz, and Nidek and Huvitz were 0.01 ± 0.24D (-0.46 to 0.48), -0.06 ± 0.31D (-0.66 to 0.54), and -0.07 ± 0.26D (-0.58 to 0.44), and those for the differences in cylinder power were -0.07 ± 0.26D (-0.57 to 0.44), 0.01 ± 0.32D (-0.63 to 0.64), and 0.07 ± 0.28D (-0.48 to 0.62), respectively (RM-ANOVA, P < .001). Further, the mean differences in J0 and J45 between each refractor pair ranged from -0.03 to 0.01, and the 95% LoA were -0.78 to 0.74, -0.79 to 0.74, and -0.73 to 0.72 for J0 and -0.86 to 0.87, -0.86 to 0.88, and -0.83 to 0.84 for J45, respectively.Conclusions: Our study will allow for use of these three autorefractors interchangeably in large screening studies.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        research
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N