Comparison of cycloplegic refraction between Grand Seiko autorefractor and Retinomax autorefractor in the Vision in Preschoolers–Hyperopia in Preschoolers (VIP-HIP) Study

Abstract

PURPOSE To evaluate the agreement of cycloplegic refractive error measures between the Grand Seiko and Retinomax autorefractors in 4- and 5-year-old children. METHODS Cycloplegic refractive error of children was measured using the Grand Seiko and Retinomax during a comprehensive eye examination. Accommodative error was measured using the Grand Seiko. The differences in sphere, cylinder, spherical equivalent (SE) and intereye vector dioptric distance (VDD) between autorefractors were assessed using the Bland-Altman plot and 95% limits of agreement (95% LoA). RESULTS A total of 702 examinations were included. Compared to the Retinomax, the Grand Seiko provided statistically significantly larger values of sphere (mean difference, 0.34 D; 95% LoA, −0.46 to 1.14 D), SE (mean, 0.25 D; 95% LoA, −0.55 to 1.05 D), VDD (mean, 0.19 D; 95% LoA, −0.67 to 1.05 D), and more cylinder (mean, −0.18 D; 95% LoA, −0.91 to 0.55 D). The Grand Seiko measured ≥0.5 D than Retinomax in 43.1% of eyes for sphere and 29.8% of eyes for SE. In multivariate analysis, eyes with SE of >4 D (based on the average of two autorefractors) had larger differences in sphere (mean, 0.66 D vs 0.35 D; P < 0.0001) and SE (0.57 D vs 0.26 D; P < 0.0001) than eyes with SE of ≤4 D. CONCLUSIONS Under cycloplegia, the Grand Seiko provided higher measures of sphere, more cylinder, and higher SE than the Retinomax. Higher refractive error was associated with larger differences in sphere and SE between the Grand Seiko and Retinomax. (J AAPOS 2017;21: 219–223)

Open versus closed view autorefraction in young adults

“…A mean difference of approximately 0.76D was found which reduced to a difference of 0.10D with cycloplegia. Ying et al 7 also compared cycloplegic measurements using the Grand Seiko and the Retinomax for children, aged approximately 4–6 years old, a mean difference of approximately 0.34D was reported. Thus such findings may, at least in part, be attributable to reduced proximal accommodation found with open view autorefraction.…”

“…1 It took approximately a further 20 years for such an instrument to become commercially available. 2 Since those early models, autorefractors have progressed in design and availability 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ; and while subjective refraction remains the gold standard, autorefraction has firmly established a vital ancillary role within optometric and ophthalmological clinical and research settings.…”

“…While there are numerous studies comparing open-view autorefractors to subjective refraction or other open-view autorefractors, 3 , 4 , 5 , 15 most studies between closed and open-view autorefraction tend to focus on children rather than young adults. 7 , 14 Furthermore, studies in this field are generally of limited use once the autorefractor in question ceases to be commercially available. 16 …”

Ocular Refraction at Birth and Its Development During the First Year of Life in a Large Cohort of Babies in a Single Center in Northern Italy

“…Although cyclopentolate 0.5% is a better cycloplegic agent than tropicamide (1%) and has been used in other studies (40), it also produces systemic and local adverse events due to its muscarinic antagonist activity (41). For this reason, we chose to use tropicamide in our study.…”

Scope and costs of autorefraction and photoscreening for childhood amblyopia—a systematic narrative review in relation to the EUSCREEN project data

“…In the United States (US), some wellestablished research groups (e.g. The Alaska Blind Children Discovery (ABCD) group [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32], groups in Tennessee [33][34][35][36][37][38][39] and Pennsylvania [40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48] the multi-centre Vision in Preschoolers (VIP) Group [49][50][51][52][53][54] have published many papers developing the evidence-base on the most effective photoscreening tests, their validation and refinement of referral criteria. Fifty-five percent of the 370 abstracts reviewed were from the US, 17% from Europe and 14% from East Asia.…”