AIM: To compare the results of noncycloplegic photorefraction, cycloplegic photorefraction and cycloplegic refraction in preschool and non-verbal children.METHODS: One hundred and ninety-six eyes of 98children(50 fema...AIM: To compare the results of noncycloplegic photorefraction, cycloplegic photorefraction and cycloplegic refraction in preschool and non-verbal children.METHODS: One hundred and ninety-six eyes of 98children(50 females, 48 males) were included in the study. Firstly, non-cycloplegic photorefraction was achieved with Plusoptix A09; secondly, cycloplegic photorefraction was carried out with Plusoptix A09 after10 min cyclopentolate. Finally, 30 min after instillation of twice cyclopentolate, cycloplegic refraction was obtained with autorefraction and/or standard retinoscopy. Spheric equivalent, spheric power, cylindric power and cylindrical axis measurements were statistically compared.RESULTS: The mean age was 28.8±18.5mo(range12-72mo). The differences in spherical equivalent, spheric power and cylindrical power measured by the three methods were found statistically significant(P 【0.05).The spherical equivalent and spheric power measured by cycloplegic photorefraction were statistically higher than the measurements of the other methods(P 【0.05). The cylindrical power measured by cycloplegic refraction was statistically lower than the measurements of the photorefraction methods(P 【0.05). There was no significant difference in cylindrical axis measurements between three methods(P 】0.05).CONCLUSION: For the determination of refractive errors in children, the Plusoptix A09 measurements give incorrect results after instillation of cyclopentolate.Additionally, the cylindrical power measured by Plusoptix A09 with or without cycloplegia is higher. However, the non-cycloplegic Plusoptix A09 measures spheric equivalent and spheric power similar to cycloplegic refraction measurements in preschool and non-verbal children.展开更多
目的:对比不同验光方法在儿童低中度近视筛查中的应用价值。方法:分别采用德国Plusoptix屈光筛查仪、电脑验光仪对728名3~7岁儿童进行视力筛查,比较两种验光方法的近视筛查结果,分析两种检查结果的一致性,以散瞳验光结果作为“金标准”...目的:对比不同验光方法在儿童低中度近视筛查中的应用价值。方法:分别采用德国Plusoptix屈光筛查仪、电脑验光仪对728名3~7岁儿童进行视力筛查,比较两种验光方法的近视筛查结果,分析两种检查结果的一致性,以散瞳验光结果作为“金标准”,评价两种验光方法诊断近视的敏感度、特异度、准确度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值、Kappa值。结果:散瞳验光共检出近视270例,近视率为37.09%,电脑验光仪共检出近视255例,检出率为35.03%,Plusoptix屈光筛查仪共检出近视233例,检出率为32.01%,电脑验光近视检出率略高于Plusoptix屈光筛查仪,但两组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);两种验光方法不同年龄段及不同性别近视检出率比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);两种验光方法测得的球镜、柱镜、SE差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。一致性分析显示,球镜、柱镜、SE的95%一致性界限(95%limits of agreement, 95%LoA)分别为-1.00D~1.10D、-0.56D~0.60D、-1.00D~1.10D,两种检测方法球镜、柱镜、SE的内部一致性(ICC)分别为0.94、0.86、0.93;电脑验光诊断近视的敏感度、特异度、准确度分别为94.07%、99.78%、97.66%,一致性分析Kappa值为0.95,Plusoptix屈光筛查仪诊断近视的敏感度、特异度、准确度分别为85.93%、99.78%、94.64%,一致性分析Kappa值为0.88,二者与散瞳验光结果一致性均较高。结论:Plusoptix屈光筛查仪近视检出率略低于电脑验光,两种验光方法检查结果一致性较高,且与散瞳验光结果均有良好的一致性,Plusoptix屈光筛查仪具有操作简单、便捷、配合度佳等优势,是低龄儿童近视筛查的理想手段。展开更多
文摘AIM: To compare the results of noncycloplegic photorefraction, cycloplegic photorefraction and cycloplegic refraction in preschool and non-verbal children.METHODS: One hundred and ninety-six eyes of 98children(50 females, 48 males) were included in the study. Firstly, non-cycloplegic photorefraction was achieved with Plusoptix A09; secondly, cycloplegic photorefraction was carried out with Plusoptix A09 after10 min cyclopentolate. Finally, 30 min after instillation of twice cyclopentolate, cycloplegic refraction was obtained with autorefraction and/or standard retinoscopy. Spheric equivalent, spheric power, cylindric power and cylindrical axis measurements were statistically compared.RESULTS: The mean age was 28.8±18.5mo(range12-72mo). The differences in spherical equivalent, spheric power and cylindrical power measured by the three methods were found statistically significant(P 【0.05).The spherical equivalent and spheric power measured by cycloplegic photorefraction were statistically higher than the measurements of the other methods(P 【0.05). The cylindrical power measured by cycloplegic refraction was statistically lower than the measurements of the photorefraction methods(P 【0.05). There was no significant difference in cylindrical axis measurements between three methods(P 】0.05).CONCLUSION: For the determination of refractive errors in children, the Plusoptix A09 measurements give incorrect results after instillation of cyclopentolate.Additionally, the cylindrical power measured by Plusoptix A09 with or without cycloplegia is higher. However, the non-cycloplegic Plusoptix A09 measures spheric equivalent and spheric power similar to cycloplegic refraction measurements in preschool and non-verbal children.
文摘目的:对比不同验光方法在儿童低中度近视筛查中的应用价值。方法:分别采用德国Plusoptix屈光筛查仪、电脑验光仪对728名3~7岁儿童进行视力筛查,比较两种验光方法的近视筛查结果,分析两种检查结果的一致性,以散瞳验光结果作为“金标准”,评价两种验光方法诊断近视的敏感度、特异度、准确度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值、Kappa值。结果:散瞳验光共检出近视270例,近视率为37.09%,电脑验光仪共检出近视255例,检出率为35.03%,Plusoptix屈光筛查仪共检出近视233例,检出率为32.01%,电脑验光近视检出率略高于Plusoptix屈光筛查仪,但两组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);两种验光方法不同年龄段及不同性别近视检出率比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);两种验光方法测得的球镜、柱镜、SE差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。一致性分析显示,球镜、柱镜、SE的95%一致性界限(95%limits of agreement, 95%LoA)分别为-1.00D~1.10D、-0.56D~0.60D、-1.00D~1.10D,两种检测方法球镜、柱镜、SE的内部一致性(ICC)分别为0.94、0.86、0.93;电脑验光诊断近视的敏感度、特异度、准确度分别为94.07%、99.78%、97.66%,一致性分析Kappa值为0.95,Plusoptix屈光筛查仪诊断近视的敏感度、特异度、准确度分别为85.93%、99.78%、94.64%,一致性分析Kappa值为0.88,二者与散瞳验光结果一致性均较高。结论:Plusoptix屈光筛查仪近视检出率略低于电脑验光,两种验光方法检查结果一致性较高,且与散瞳验光结果均有良好的一致性,Plusoptix屈光筛查仪具有操作简单、便捷、配合度佳等优势,是低龄儿童近视筛查的理想手段。
