Clinical & experimental optometry · 2023
Kaleidos-based binocular vision analyzer for the estimation of refractive errors and horizontal ocular deviation in children.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Suwal Rinkal, Singh Basanta, Adhikari Sikshya, Khadka Deepak, Suwal Barsha, Khatri Bijay, Shrestha Gauri Shankar
Аннотация
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Knowing the agreement and interobserver variability of the 2WIN-S photorefractometer with cycloplegic retinoscopy and prism cover test is important for judging the clinical usefulness of the device.
BACKGROUND: This study aims to determine an agreement and interobserver reliability between 2WIN-S photorefractometer and cycloplegic retinoscopy for estimating refractive errors and between 2WIN-S and prism cover test for measuring horizontal ocular deviation in children.
METHODS: Two groups of 129 and 64 participants (range, 5 to 16 years) were recruited for the agreement and interobserver reliability studies, respectively. Non-cycloplegic 2WIN-S refraction was compared with cycloplegic retinoscopy for low and moderate myopia and hyperopia. Similarly, corneal reflex-function (CR-function) of 2WIN-S was compared with prism cover test for horizontal ocular deviation. Bland-Altman plots were used to depict agreement, and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used for determining interobserver reliability of repeated measures.
RESULTS: The mean differences in spherical equivalent, J0 (Cartesian astigmatism) and J45 (oblique Jackson cross-cylinder) between cycloplegic retinoscopy and 2WIN-S were 1.10 (95% CI = 0.97 to 1.21, p < 0.001), -0.06 (95% CI = -0.09 to -0.03, p < 0.001) and 0.009 (95% CI = -0.01 to 0.03, p = 0.35), respectively. The overall median difference in the horizontal ocular deviation between prism cover test and 2WIN-S was -4.5 (Interquartile range = -12.0 to 4.0). For constant strabismus, this difference was insignificant (median= -2.0, interquartile range = -11.0 to 6.7, p = 0.19) between prism cover test and 2WIN-S. The ICC was high for the spherical equivalent (0.997; p < 0.001), J0 (0.932; p < 0.001) and J45 (0.901; p < 0.001), whereas it was low-to-moderate for horizontal ocular deviation (0.50; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: 2WIN-S refraction was in agreement with cycloplegic retinoscopy for low and moderate myopia and hyperopia, and requires an adjustment for the consistent differences between cycloplegic retinoscopy and 2WIN-S refraction. The measurement of constant strabismus with 2WIN-S is comparable to that of prism cover test.
BACKGROUND: This study aims to determine an agreement and interobserver reliability between 2WIN-S photorefractometer and cycloplegic retinoscopy for estimating refractive errors and between 2WIN-S and prism cover test for measuring horizontal ocular deviation in children.
METHODS: Two groups of 129 and 64 participants (range, 5 to 16 years) were recruited for the agreement and interobserver reliability studies, respectively. Non-cycloplegic 2WIN-S refraction was compared with cycloplegic retinoscopy for low and moderate myopia and hyperopia. Similarly, corneal reflex-function (CR-function) of 2WIN-S was compared with prism cover test for horizontal ocular deviation. Bland-Altman plots were used to depict agreement, and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used for determining interobserver reliability of repeated measures.
RESULTS: The mean differences in spherical equivalent, J0 (Cartesian astigmatism) and J45 (oblique Jackson cross-cylinder) between cycloplegic retinoscopy and 2WIN-S were 1.10 (95% CI = 0.97 to 1.21, p < 0.001), -0.06 (95% CI = -0.09 to -0.03, p < 0.001) and 0.009 (95% CI = -0.01 to 0.03, p = 0.35), respectively. The overall median difference in the horizontal ocular deviation between prism cover test and 2WIN-S was -4.5 (Interquartile range = -12.0 to 4.0). For constant strabismus, this difference was insignificant (median= -2.0, interquartile range = -11.0 to 6.7, p = 0.19) between prism cover test and 2WIN-S. The ICC was high for the spherical equivalent (0.997; p < 0.001), J0 (0.932; p < 0.001) and J45 (0.901; p < 0.001), whereas it was low-to-moderate for horizontal ocular deviation (0.50; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: 2WIN-S refraction was in agreement with cycloplegic retinoscopy for low and moderate myopia and hyperopia, and requires an adjustment for the consistent differences between cycloplegic retinoscopy and 2WIN-S refraction. The measurement of constant strabismus with 2WIN-S is comparable to that of prism cover test.