Helsinki Retina Research Group, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Hygeia Clinic, Department of Ophthalmology, Gdańsk, Poland.
BMC Ophthalmol. 2024 Mar 25;24(1):130. doi: 10.1186/s12886-024-03375-z.
Photoscreeners have been shown to provide excellent measurements of the refractive error. However, whether they could be used for assessing cycloplegic refraction has not been examied. This study aimed to evaluate the agreement between cycloplegic and non-cycloplegic measurements obtained using a photoscreener and stationary autorefractor, respectively.
This study included all patients undergoing routine ophthalmic examination at the Hygeia Clinic (Poland) from June to July 2022. Each patient underwent non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic refraction assessments using the 2WIN photoscreener (Adaptica SRL, Padova, Italy) and an ARK-1 stationary autorefractor ARK-1 (Nidek Co Ltd., Tokyo, Japan), respectively. Each pair of assessments was conducted in random order, and all values were determined at a vertical distance of 12 mm. The agreement between cycloplegic and non-cycloplegic measurements was assessed using paired t-tests, Bland-Altman and ABCD ellipsoids.
This analysis included 82 patients, of which 52 were female. Their mean age was 34.39 ± 13.13 years. The non-cycloplegic spherical equivalent (SE) did not differ significantly between the 2WIN (- 1.22 ± 2.45) and ARK-1 (- 1.19 ± 2.96) devices (p = 0.580). However, the cycloplegic SE values demonstrated more negative values with the 2WIN device (- 1.13 ± 2.19) than with the ARK-1 device (- 0.75 ± 3.03; p = 0.007). The non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic measurements were strongly correlated between the devices (r = 0.9473 and 0.9411, respectively). However, the correlation between their cycloplegic shifts in SE was low (r = 0.2645). Ellipsoid refraction aligned better non-cycloplegic (ARK-1 = 1.00; 2WIN = 1.74) than with cycloplegic refraction (ARK-1 = 1.43; 2WIN = 1.90).
While the cycloplegic measurements obtained with the 2WIN photoscreener were strongly correlated with those obtained with the ARK-1 stationary autorefractor for most of the analyzed parameters, they should not be considered interchangeable.
照片筛查器已被证明可以提供出色的屈光不正测量值。然而,它们是否可用于评估睫状肌麻痹后的屈光度尚未得到验证。本研究旨在评估使用照片筛查器和固定自动折射仪分别获得的睫状肌麻痹和非睫状肌麻痹测量值之间的一致性。
本研究纳入了 2022 年 6 月至 7 月期间在 Hygiea 诊所(波兰)接受常规眼科检查的所有患者。每位患者分别使用 2WIN 照片筛查器(Adaptica SRL,帕多瓦,意大利)和 ARK-1 固定自动折射仪 ARK-1(尼德克株式会社,东京,日本)进行非睫状肌麻痹和睫状肌麻痹评估。每对评估均以随机顺序进行,所有值均在垂直距离 12mm 处确定。使用配对 t 检验、Bland-Altman 和 ABCD 椭圆来评估睫状肌麻痹和非睫状肌麻痹测量值之间的一致性。
本分析共纳入 82 例患者,其中 52 例为女性。他们的平均年龄为 34.39±13.13 岁。2WIN(-1.22±2.45)和 ARK-1(-1.19±2.96)设备的非睫状肌麻痹球镜等效(SE)差异无统计学意义(p=0.580)。然而,2WIN 设备的睫状肌麻痹 SE 值更负(-1.13±2.19),而 ARK-1 设备的 SE 值更负(-0.75±3.03;p=0.007)。设备之间的非睫状肌麻痹和睫状肌麻痹测量值具有很强的相关性(r 分别为 0.9473 和 0.9411)。然而,它们的 SE 睫状肌麻痹偏移之间的相关性较低(r=0.2645)。椭圆折射在非睫状肌麻痹(ARK-1=1.00;2WIN=1.74)方面与睫状肌麻痹(ARK-1=1.43;2WIN=1.90)方面的相关性更好。
虽然 2WIN 照片筛查器获得的睫状肌麻痹测量值与 ARK-1 固定自动折射仪获得的大多数分析参数的测量值具有很强的相关性,但它们不应被视为可互换的。