BMJ open ophthalmology · 2024
Method comparison and overview of refractive measurements in children: implications for myopia management.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Müller Jonas, Chen Xiaoqin, Ohlendorf Arne, Li Lihua, Wahl Siegfried
Аннотация
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.
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.