June 2013
Volume 54, Issue 15
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2013
A comparison of non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic autorefraction using Spot™ to manual cycloplegic retinoscopy in a pediatric population
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Adil Bhatti
    Ophthalmology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
  • Rami Abo-Shasha
    Ophthalmology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
  • Rejean Munger
    Ophthalmology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
  • Michael O'Connor
    Ophthalmology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Adil Bhatti, None; Rami Abo-Shasha, None; Rejean Munger, None; Michael O'Connor, None
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2013, Vol.54, 5677. doi:https://doi.org/
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Adil Bhatti, Rami Abo-Shasha, Rejean Munger, Michael O'Connor; A comparison of non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic autorefraction using Spot™ to manual cycloplegic retinoscopy in a pediatric population. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2013;54(15):5677. doi: https://doi.org/.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: Cycloplegic manual retinoscopy is the gold standard for determining pediatric refractive error. As an alternative to this labour-intensive technique, there is continued interest in autorefraction, particularly for use in pediatric vision screening programs. This study compares autorefraction using Spot™ (PediaVision LLC, Pompano Beach, FL) to manual retinoscopy in a pediatric population.

Methods: Case series (retrospective chart review). Forty-five children underwent autorefraction (non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic) and manual cycloplegic refraction by a staff ophthalmologist in the pediatric ophthalmology clinic. Refractive errors were converted to spherical equivalents. Data from the right eye of each subject were used. Statistical measures of performance (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values) were then calculated for both non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic autorefraction conditions: myopia (< -1D), hyperopia (+>2D), cylindrical (>1D), and anisometropia (>1.5D in equivalent sphere), using manual retinoscopy as the gold standard.

Results: The mean differences between non-cycloplegic autorefraction and cycloplegic retinoscopy, non-cycloplegic autorefraction and cycloplegic autorefraction, and cycoplegic autorefraction and cycoplegic retinoscopy were -1.85 +/- 2.20, -2.10 +/- 2.52, and 0.20 +/- 2.16, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity for non-cycloplegic autorefraction were as follows: myopia (sensitivity 40%, sensitivity 90%), hyperopia (sensitivity 18.8%, sensitivity 96.6%), cylinder (sensitivity 75%, sensitivity 79.3%), and anisometropia (sensitivity 21.8%, sensitivity 95.4%). Cycloplegic autorefraction for myopia revealed sensitivity 66.7% and sensitivity 100%; for hyperopia, sensitivity 83.3% and sensitivity 92.9%; for cylinder, sensitivity 50% and sensitivity 71.4%; and for anisometropia, sensitivity 84.2% and sensitivity 90.5%.

Conclusions: These results suggest that the Spot™ autorefractor is fairly effective at detecting clinically significant refractive errors under cycloplegic conditions. Under non-cycloplegic conditions, induced accommodation may limit the instrument’s ability to effectively detect hyperopia and anisometropia in pediatric subjects. This factor should be taken into consideration when using these types of devices for pediatric vision screening.

Keywords: 709 screening for ambylopia and strabismus  
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×