May 2008
Volume 49, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2008
Measuring Refractive Error in Adults in Epidemiological Studies
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • E. M. Krantz
    University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin
    Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences,
  • K. J. Cruickshanks
    University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin
    Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences,
  • B. E. K. Klein
    University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin
    Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences,
  • R. Klein
    University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin
    Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences,
  • C. W. Acher
    University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin
    Surgery,
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  E.M. Krantz, None; K.J. Cruickshanks, None; B.E.K. Klein, None; R. Klein, None; C.W. Acher, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  NIH Grant AG021917
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2008, Vol.49, 3133. doi:https://doi.org/
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      E. M. Krantz, K. J. Cruickshanks, B. E. K. Klein, R. Klein, C. W. Acher; Measuring Refractive Error in Adults in Epidemiological Studies. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2008;49(13):3133. doi: https://doi.org/.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: : In population-based studies of older adults refractive error is frequently measured without cycloplegia. However, as younger adults are studied, it is important to know the measurement error associated with accommodative ability. The purpose of this paper is to compare refractive error measured on pharmacologically dilated versus undilated eyes.

Methods: : Preliminary data from the Beaver Dam Offspring Study provided refractive error for both undilated and pharmacologically dilated eyes of 2399 participants. Refractive error was defined by the spherical equivalent (SE), calculated from autorefractor readings. Differences for each eye were calculated as the SE for the pharmacologically dilated eye minus the SE for the undilated eye. Generalized estimating equations, stratified by age groups, estimated mean differences, while accounting for the correlation between eye measurements from the same person. Myopia was defined as SE ≤ -1, emmetropia as -1< SE< 1, and hyperopia as SE ≥ 1.

Results: : The mean age was 49 years (range 22 to 84). Among those aged 22 to 39 years, the estimated mean difference in SE was largest among the hyperopes (0.89 diopters, 95% CI 0.53, 1.25), followed by the emmetropes (0.55, 95% CI 0.48, 0.61), and then the myopes (0.28, 95% CI 0.23, 0.32). Differences between pharmacologically dilated and undilated SEs did not vary greatly by these classifications for older participants, but did decrease with age. The estimated mean difference was 0.41 diopters (95% CI 0.39, 0.44) for those aged 40 to 49, 0.14 (95% CI 0.12, 0.16) for those 50 to 59 years old, and 0.09 (95% CI 0.06, 0.12) for those 60 and older. Across all age groups, the agreement was high between classifications based on pharmacologically dilated SEs and on undilated SEs (84% to 91% agreement).

Conclusions: : On average, spherical equivalents for pharmacologically dilated eyes were slightly greater (more hyperopic) than those for undilated eyes, particularly among hyperopes under 40 years of age. However, the magnitude of differences in refractive error (mean of <1 diopter) and impact on estimates of myopia and hyperopia suggest that cycloplegia may not be essential in epidemiologic studies of adults.

Keywords: clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: biostatistics/epidemiology methodology • refraction • accomodation 
×
×

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.

×