Auto-refraction versus subjective refraction in different phakic and pseudophakic conditions:the Tehran Geriatric Eye Study(TGES)

AIM:To compare the subjective refraction data with non-cycloplegic auto-refraction findings in the geriatric population above 60 years of age according to the different crystalline lens conditions.METHODS:This report is a part of the Tehran Geriatric Eye Study(TGES)that was conducted from January 2019 to January 2020 on elderly population 60 years of age and above in Tehran.The samples were selected by multistage stratified random cluster sampling.Of 3791 individual invitees,3310(response rate:87.3%)participated in this study.All study participants underwent non-cycloplegic autorefraction(auto-refractometer/keratometer Nidek ARK-510)and subjective refraction.RESULTS:Regarding the sphere,eyes with mixed cataract had the worst limits of agreement(LoA:-1.24 to 0.87)and the best agreement was related to the pseudophakic eyes(LoA:-0.83 to 0.54).The highest(0.27±0.31 D)and lowest(0.21±0.27 D)differences between the two methods regarding the cylinder power were observed in eyes with cortical cataract and normal eyes,respectively.The worst LoA between the two methods in measuring the cylinder power was related to the eyes with mixed cataract(LoA:-0.44 to 0.96).Regarding the J0(horizontal/vertical components of astigmatism),the mean values of J0 obtained by auto-refraction were tended more toward against the rule direction in all crystalline lens conditions,and the two methods had the greatest difference in cortical cataract cases(0.05±0.17 D).Regarding the J45(oblique components of astigmatism),the lowest(0±0.11 D)and highest(-0.01±0.12 D)differences were observed in normal eyes and eyes with cortical cataract,respectively.CONCLUSION:The auto-refractometer/keratometer Nidek ARK-510 results in the elderly with different phakic and pseudophakic conditions do not correspond well with subjective refraction findings.This discrepancy in spherical findings is more pronounced in individuals with mixed cataract than in other cases.

Comparison between two autorefractor performances in large scale vision screening in Chinese school age children

AIM:To evaluate the effectiveness of Grand Seiko Ref/Keratometer WAM-5500 compared to Topcon KR800 autorefractor in detecting refractive error in large scale vision screening for Chinese school age children with the WHO criteria.METHODS:A total of 886 participants were enrolled with mean age of 9.49±1.88 y from Tianjin,China.Spherical equivalent(SE)was obtained from un-cycloplegic autorefraction and cycloplegic autorefraction.Topcon KR 800(Topcon)and Grand Seiko WAM-5500(WAM)autorefractors were used.Bland-Altman Plot and regression were generated to compare their performance.The overall effectiveness of detecting early stage refractive error was analyzed with receiver operating characteristic(ROC)curves.RESULTS:The mean SE was-0.98±1.81 diopter(D)and the prevalence of myopia was 48.9%defined by WHO criteria according to the result of cycloplegic autorefraction.The mean SE of un-cycloplegic autorefraction with Topcon and WAM were-1.21±1.65 and-1.20±1.68 D respectively.There was a strong linear agreement between result obtained from WAM and cycloplegic autorefraction with an R2 of 0.8318.Bland-Altman plot indicated a moderate agreement of cylinder values between the two methods.The sensitivity and specificity for detecting hyperopia were 90.52%and 83.51%;for detecting myopia were 95.60%and 90.24%;for detecting astigmatism were 79.40%and 90.21%;for detecting high myopia were 98.16%and 98.91%respectively.CONCLUSION:These findings suggest that both Grand Seiko and Topcon autorefractor can be used in large-scale vision screening for detecting refractive error in Chinese population.Grand Seiko gives relatively better performance in detecting myopia,hyperopia,and high myopia for school age children.

Non-cycloplegic spherical equivalent refraction in adults:comparison of the double-pass system,retinoscopy,subjective refraction and a table-mounted autorefractor

AIM:To evaluate the accuracy of spherical equivalent(SE) estimates of a double-pass system and to compare it with retinoscopy,subjective refraction and a table mounted autorefractor.METHODS:Non-cycloplegic refraction was performed on 125 eyes of 65 healthy adults(age 23.5±3.0 years) from October 2010 to January 2011 using retinoscopy,subjective refraction,autorefraction(Auto kerato refractometer TOPCON KR-8100,Japan) and a double pass system(Optical Quality Analysis System,OQAS,Visiometrics S.L.,Spain).Nine consecutive measurements with the double-pass system were performed on a subgroup of 22 eyes to assess repeatability.To evaluate the trueness of the OQAS instrument,the SE laboratory bias between the double pass system and the other techniques was calculated.RESULTS:The SE mean coefficient of repeatability obtained was 0.22D.Significant correlations could be established between the OQAS and the SE obtained with retinoscopy(r=0.956,P【0.001),subjective refraction(r=0.955,P【0.001) and autorefraction(r=0.957,P【0.001).The differences in SE between the double-pass system and the other techniques were significant(P【0.001),but lacked clinical relevance except for retinoscopy;Retinoscopy gave more hyperopic values than the double-pass system-0.51±0.50D as well as the subjective refraction-0.23±0.50D;More myopic values were achieved by means of autorefraction 0.24±0.49D. CONCLUSION:The double-pass system provides accurate and reliable estimates of the SE that can be used for clinical studies.This technique can determine the correct focus position to assess the ocular optical quality.However,it has a relatively small measuring range in comparison with autorefractors(-8.00 to +5.00D),and requires prior information on the refractive state of the patient.

Validity of automated refraction after segmented refractive multifocal intraocular lens implantation

AIM： To evaluate the clinical utility of automated refraction（AR） and keratometry（KR） compared with subjective or manifest refraction（MR） after cataract or refractive lens exchange surgery with implantation of Lentis Mplus X（Oculentis GmbH） refractive multifocal intraocular lens（IOL）.METHODS： Eighty-six eyes implanted with the Lentis Mplus X multifocal IOL were included. MR was performed in all patients followed by three consecutive AR measurements using the Topcon KR-8000 autorefractor. Assessment of repeatability of consecutive AR before and after dilation with phenylephrine 10%, and comparison of the AR and KR with MR using vector analysis were performed at 3 mo follow-up.RESULTS： Analysis showed excellent repeatability of the AR measurements. Linear regression of AR versus MR showed good correlation for sphere and spherical equivalent, whereas the correlation for astigmatism was low. The mean difference AR-MR was-1.28±0.29 diopters（D） for sphere. Astigmatism showed better correlation between KR and MR. CONCLUSION： We suggest AR sphere plus 1.25 D and the KR cylinder as the starting point for MR in eyes with a Lentis Mplus X multifocal IOL. If AR measurements are equal to MR, decentration of the IOL should be suspected.

Vision Screening in the Pediatrician’s Office

Objective: To assess current practices, attitudes, and perceived barriers toward pediatric vision screening. Patients and Methods: A link to a 9-question survey was electronically distributed to a national sample of 6000 pediatricians through Medical Marketing Services Inc. Data were collected using Survey Monkey. Results: Email open rate was 11%;37% of those who opened the email responded (225 respondents). Over ninety percent of respondents perform some type of vision screening at least yearly, although age at which screening began varied, with two thirds of respondents instituting formal vision screening after three years. Fifty eight percent of respondents were either extremely unsatisfied, unsatisfied or only somewhat satisfied with their current screening method. Preferred methods of screening and confidence of pediatricians in their ability to detect pathology varied for children under versus over age three. The least frequently used methods for all age groups were autorefraction and photoscreening. The most commonly reported barriers to screening were inadequate training (48%), time required for exam (42%), and inadequate reimbursement (32%). Conclusions: Perceived barriers to vision screening in the pediatrician office have been previously identified, and photoscreening and autorefraction have been identified as a possible means to circumvent them. In spite of the addition of new procedural codes, pediatricians continue to report similar barriers to screening.