论文部分内容阅读
Purpose:To evaluate the accuracy of autorefraction using three autorefractors comparing to subjective refraction in diagnosing refractive error in children.Design:A cross-sectional study.Methods:setting:Community based study.study population:117 children sampled from primary schools.procedures:All subjects underwent autorefraction using three auto refractors and subjective refraction with and without cycloplegia.main outcome measures:Spherical power,cylindrical power,and spherical equivalence(SE) .Results:Without cycloplegia,the mean SE were significantly different for Retinomax K plus 2(-1.55 diopters,SD 2.37 diopters;95% CI-1.98 to-1.12;P<.0001) and Canon RF10(-1.11 diopters;SD 2.61 diopters;95% CI-1.59 to-0.64;P=.0023) compared with monocular subjective refraction(-0.80 diopters;SD 2.25 diopters;95% CI-1.21 to-0.35) .Mean SE was significantly different for Grand Seiko WR5100K(-0.79 diopters;SD 2.40 diopters;95% CI-1.23 to-0.35;P=.0002) comparedwith binocular subjective refraction(-0.62 diopters;SD 2.51 diopters;95% CI-1.07 to-0.16) .With cycloplegia,there was no significant difference in mean SE between refraction methods.Sensitivity and specificity results for the diagnosis of myopia:Without cycloplegia:Retinomax K plus 2(sensitivity 1.0,specificity 0.51) ;Canon RF10(sensitivity 0.92,specificity 0.81) ;and Grand Seiko WR5100K(sensitivity 0.91,specificity 0.98) .With cycloplegia:RetinomaxK plus 2(sensitivity 0.97,specificity 0.99) ;Canon RF10(sensitivity 0.97,specificity 0.96) ;and Grand SeikoWR5100K(sensitivity 1.0,specificity 0.97) .Conclusions:Under noncycloplegic conditions,all three autorefractors have a tendency towards minus over correction in children resulting in over diagnosis of myopia.However autorefractors were accurate under cycloplegic conditions.
Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of autorefraction using three autorefractors comparing to subjective refraction in diagnosed refractive error in children. Design: A cross-sectional study. Methods: setting: Community based study. Study population: 117 children sampled from primary schools.procedures: All subjects underwent autorefraction using three auto refractors and subjective refraction with and without cycloplegia. Main outcome measures: Spherical power, cylindrical power, and spherical equivalence (SE). Results: Without cycloplegia, the mean SE were significantly different for Retinomax K plus 2 ( -1.55 diopters, SD 2.37 diopters; 95% CI-1.98 to-1.12; P <.0001) and Canon RF10 (-1.11 diopters; SD 2.61 diopters; 95% CI -1.59 to-0.64; 95% CI-1.21 to-0.35). Mean SE was significantly different for Grand Seiko WR5100K (-0.79 diopters; SD 2.40 diopters; 95% CI-1.23 to-0.35; P = .0002) comparedwith binocular subjective refraction (-0 .62 diopters; SD 2.51 diopters; 95% CI-1.07 to-0.16) .With cycloplegia, there was no significant difference in mean SE between refraction methods. Sensitivity and specificity results for the diagnosis of myopia: Without cycloplegia: Retinomax K plus 2 (sensitivity 0.97, specificity 0.99); Canon RF10 (sensitivity 0.92, specificity 0.81); and Grand Seiko WR5100K (sensitivity 0.91, specificity 0.98) specificity 0.96); and Grand Seiko WR5100K (sensitivity 1.0, specificity 0.97) .Conclusions: Under noncycloplegic conditions, all three autorefractors have a tendency towards minus over correction in children resulting in over diagnosis of myopia. Yet autorefractors were accurate under cycloplegic conditions.