2013Clinical and Experimental OptometryRequires access

A comparison of the Plusoptix S08 photorefractor to retinoscopy and cycloretinoscopy

Ali Mirzajani, Mohsen Heirani, Ebrahim Jafarzadehpur, Hamid Haghani

Open publisher page 22 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The aim was to compare outcome measures of refractive error by the Plusoptix S08 photorefractor with measures obtained by retinoscopy and cycloretinoscopy in children. METHOD: The refractive error of the right eye of 144 non-strabismic children, aged 2.5 to 5.5 years, was determined by Plusoptix S08 photorefraction, retinoscopy and cycloretinoscopy. Agreement between outcome measures of refractive error (spherical error, cylindrical error and spherical equivalent) by the three techniques were tested by Bland-Altman limits of agreement. RESULTS: The mean difference for spherical equivalent results of photorefraction (P(se)) minus those of retinoscopy (R(se)) and photorefraction minus those of cycloretinoscopy (CR(se)) were +0.53 ± 0.62 D and -0.22 ± 0.75 D, respectively. The 95 per cent limits of agreement for spherical photorefraction with retinoscopy and cycloretinoscopy were ±1.22 D (range -0.69 to +1.75) and ±1.47 D (range -1.69 to +1.25), respectively. The mean difference for cylindrical results of photorefraction (P(c)) minus those of retinoscopy (R(c)) and Pc minus those of cycloretinoscopy (CR(c)) were +0.11 ± 0.39 D and +0.13 ± 0.44 D, respectively. The 95 per cent limits of agreement for P(c) with R(c) and CR(c) were ±0.76 D (range -0.65 to +0.87) and ±0.86 D (range -0.73 to +0.99), respectively. The mean and standard deviation of weighted axes difference, comparing Plusoptix S08 and retinoscopy was 0.25 ± 0.36 and comparing Plusoptix S08 and cycloretinoscopy was 0.29 ± 0.51. Eighty-two per cent of the spherical equivalent findings in photorefraction and cycloretinoscopy show a difference of within 1.00 D. Regarding cylindrical power, this percentage is 96.6 per cent. CONCLUSION: As the findings demonstrate a fairly good consistency between the results of the Plusoptix S08 Photorefractor without using cycloplegic agents and those of cycloretinoscopy, the Plusoptix S08 is a fairly accurate tool to estimate refractive errors of children in the limited working range of the instrument.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

BACKGROUND: The aim was to compare outcome measures of refractive error by the Plusoptix S08 photorefractor with measures obtained by retinoscopy and cycloretinoscopy in children. METHOD: The refractive error of the right eye of 144 non-strabismic children, aged 2.5 to 5.5 years, was determined by Plusoptix S08 photorefraction, retinoscopy and cycloretinoscopy. Agreement between outcome measures of refractive error (spherical error, cylindrical error and spherical equivalent) by the three techniques were tested by Bland-Altman limits of agreement. RESULTS: The mean difference for spherical equivalent results of photorefraction (P(se)) minus those of retinoscopy (R(se)) and photorefraction minus those of cycloretinoscopy (CR(se)) were +0.53 ± 0.62 D and -0.22 ± 0.75 D, respectively. The 95 per cent limits of agreement for spherical photorefraction with retinoscopy and cycloretinoscopy were ±1.22 D (range -0.69 to +1.75) and ±1.47 D (range -1.69 to +1.25), respectively. The mean difference for cylindrical results of photorefraction (P(c)) minus those of retinoscopy (R(c)) and Pc minus those of cycloretinoscopy (CR(c)) were +0.11 ± 0.39 D and +0.13 ± 0.44 D, respectively. The 95 per cent limits of agreement for P(c) with R(c) and CR(c) were ±0.76 D (range -0.65 to +0.87) and ±0.86 D (range -0.73 to +0.99), respectively. The mean and standard deviation of weighted axes difference, comparing Plusoptix S08 and retinoscopy was 0.25 ± 0.36 and comparing Plusoptix S08 and cycloretinoscopy was 0.29 ± 0.51. Eighty-two per cent of the spherical equivalent findings in photorefraction and cycloretinoscopy show a difference of within 1.00 D. Regarding cylindrical power, this percentage is 96.6 per cent. CONCLUSION: As the findings demonstrate a fairly good consistency between the results of the Plusoptix S08 Photorefractor without using cycloplegic agents and those of cycloretinoscopy, the Plusoptix S08 is a fairly accurate tool to estimate refractive errors of children in the limited working range of the instrument.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 22 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

BACKGROUND: The aim was to compare outcome measures of refractive error by the Plusoptix S08 photorefractor with measures obtained by retinoscopy and cycloretinoscopy in children. METHOD: The refractive error of the right eye of 144 non-strabismic children, aged 2.5 to 5.5 years, was determined by Plusoptix S08 photorefraction, retinoscopy and cycloretinoscopy. Agreement between outcome measures of refractive error (spherical error, cylindrical error and spherical equivalent) by the three techniques were tested by Bland-Altman limits of agreement. RESULTS: The mean difference for spherical equivalent results of photorefraction (P(se)) minus those of retinoscopy (R(se)) and photorefraction minus those of cycloretinoscopy (CR(se)) were +0.53 ± 0.62 D and -0.22 ± 0.75 D, respectively. The 95 per cent limits of agreement for spherical photorefraction with retinoscopy and cycloretinoscopy were ±1.22 D (range -0.69 to +1.75) and ±1.47 D (range -1.69 to +1.25), respectively. The mean difference for cylindrical results of photorefraction (P(c)) minus those of retinoscopy (R(c)) and Pc minus those of cycloretinoscopy (CR(c)) were +0.11 ± 0.39 D and +0.13 ± 0.44 D, respectively. The 95 per cent limits of agreement for P(c) with R(c) and CR(c) were ±0.76 D (range -0.65 to +0.87) and ±0.86 D (range -0.73 to +0.99), respectively. The mean and standard deviation of weighted axes difference, comparing Plusoptix S08 and retinoscopy was 0.25 ± 0.36 and comparing Plusoptix S08 and cycloretinoscopy was 0.29 ± 0.51. Eighty-two per cent of the spherical equivalent findings in photorefraction and cycloretinoscopy show a difference of within 1.00 D. Regarding cylindrical power, this percentage is 96.6 per cent. CONCLUSION: As the findings demonstrate a fairly good consistency between the results of the Plusoptix S08 Photorefractor without using cycloplegic agents and those of cycloretinoscopy, the Plusoptix S08 is a fairly accurate tool to estimate refractive errors of children in the limited working range of the instrument.

Key concepts: Retinoscopy, Limits of agreement, Refractive error, Mean difference, Optometry, Significant difference, Medicine, Mathematics

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
A comparison of the Plusoptix S08 photorefractor to retinoscopy and cycloretinoscopy — Research Paper | ScholarLens