Refraction in Children: A Comparison of Two Methods of Accommodation Control

被引:19
|
作者
Hopkins, Shelley [1 ]
Sampson, Geoff P. [1 ]
Hendicott, Peter [1 ]
Lacherez, Philippe [1 ]
Wood, Joanne M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Queensland Univ Technol, Sch Optometry & Vis Sci, Inst Hlth & Biomed Innovat, Brisbane, Qld 4001, Australia
关键词
refractive error; children; methodology; retinoscopy; autorefraction; cycloplegia; fogging technique; HAND-HELD AUTOREFRACTOR; PRESCHOOL-CHILDREN; CYCLOPLEGIC REFRACTIONS; ERROR; RETINOSCOPY; PREVALENCE; MYOPIA;
D O I
10.1097/OPX.0b013e318277182c
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
Purpose. The prevalence of refractive errors in children has been extensively researched. Comparisons between studies can, however, be compromised because of differences between accommodation control methods and techniques used for measuring refractive error. The aim of this study was to compare spherical refractive error results obtained at baseline and using two different accommodation control methods-extended optical fogging and cycloplegia-for two measurement techniques-autorefraction and retinoscopy. Methods. Participants included 25 school children aged 6 to 13 years (mean age, 9.52 +/- 2.06 years). The refractive error of one eye was measured at baseline and again under two different accommodation control conditions: extended optical fogging (+ 2.00DS for 20 minutes) and cycloplegia (1% cyclopentolate). Autorefraction and retinoscopy were both used to measure the most plus spherical power for each condition. Results. A significant interaction was demonstrated between measurement technique and accommodation control method (p = 0.036), with significant differences in spherical power evident between accommodation control methods for each of the measurement techniques (p < 0.005). For retinoscopy, refractive errors were significantly more positive for cycloplegia compared with optical fogging, which were in turn significantly more positive than baseline; whereas for autorefraction, there were significant differences between cycloplegia and extended optical fogging and between cycloplegia and baseline only. Conclusions. Determination of refractive error under cycloplegia elicits more plus than using extended optical fogging as a method to relax accommodation. These findings support the use of cycloplegic refraction compared with extended optical fogging as a means of controlling accommodation for population-based refractive error studies in children. (Optom Vis Sci 2012; 89: 1734-1739)
引用
收藏
页码:1734 / 1739
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] The Influence of Accommodation on Retinal Peripheral Refraction Changes in Different Measurement Areas
    Lu, Weicong
    Peng, Zisu
    Ding, Wenzhi
    Ji, Rongyuan
    Tian, Yuyin
    Zhao, Chenpei
    Leng, Lin
    JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2023, 2023
  • [32] Accommodation in Astigmatic Children During Visual Task Performance
    Harvey, Erin M.
    Miller, Joseph M.
    Apple, Howard P.
    Parashar, Pavan
    Twelker, J. Daniel
    Crescioni, Mabel
    Davis, Amy L.
    Leonard-Green, Tina K.
    Campus, Irene
    Sherrill, Duane L.
    INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 2014, 55 (08) : 5420 - 5430
  • [33] A comparison of plusoptiX A12 measurements with cycloplegic refraction
    Fogel-Levin, Miri
    Doron, Ravid
    Wygnanski-Jaffe, Tamara
    Ancri, Ofer
    Ben Zion, Itay
    JOURNAL OF AAPOS, 2016, 20 (04): : 310 - 314
  • [34] Changes in Ciliary Muscle Thickness During Accommodation in Children
    Lewis, Helen Annie
    Kao, Chiu-Yen
    Sinnott, Loraine T.
    Bailey, Melissa D.
    OPTOMETRY AND VISION SCIENCE, 2012, 89 (05) : 727 - 737
  • [35] Peripheral Refraction and Eye Lengths in Myopic Children in the Bifocal Lenses In Nearsighted Kids (BLINK) Study
    Mutti, Donald O.
    Sinnott, Loraine T.
    Reuter, Kathleen S.
    Walker, Maria K.
    Berntsen, David A.
    Jones-Jordan, Lisa A.
    Walline, Jeffrey J.
    Everett, Donald F.
    Shaw, Kimberly J.
    Huang, Juan
    Dougherty, Bradley E.
    Wessel, Pamela
    Lee, Jihyun
    Bobay, Luke A.
    Opoku, Tina
    Cardenas, Laura
    Schulle, Krystal L.
    Retnasothie, Dashaini, V
    Giannoni, Amber Gaume
    Gostovic, Anita Ticak
    Chandler, Moriah A.
    Nguyen, Mylan
    Hair, Lea
    Myers, Jill A.
    Nixon, Alex D.
    Bickle, Katherine M.
    Pierce, Gilbert E.
    Gardner, Dustin J.
    Pucker, Andrew D.
    Kowalski, Matthew
    Morrison, Ann
    Orr, Danielle J.
    Holbrook, Janet T.
    Gwiazda, Jane
    Edrington, Timothy B.
    Jackson, John Mark
    Joslin, Charlotte E.
    TRANSLATIONAL VISION SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2019, 8 (02):
  • [36] Comparison Between Refractometer and Retinoscopy in Determining Refractive Errors in Children - False Doubt
    Pokupec, Rajko
    Mrazovac, Danijela
    Popovic-Suic, Smiljka
    Mrazovac, Visnja
    Kordic, Rajko
    Petricek, Igor
    COLLEGIUM ANTROPOLOGICUM, 2013, 37 : 205 - 208
  • [37] Comparison of retinoscopy results with and without 1% cyclopentolate in school-aged children
    Doherty, Sue E.
    Doyle, Lesley A.
    McCullough, Sara J.
    Saunders, Kathryn J.
    OPHTHALMIC AND PHYSIOLOGICAL OPTICS, 2019, 39 (04) : 272 - 281
  • [38] Assessing Children's Understanding of Complex Syntax: A Comparison of Two Methods
    Frizelle, Pauline
    Thompson, Paul
    Duta, Mihaela
    Bishop, Dorothy V. M.
    LANGUAGE LEARNING, 2019, 69 (02) : 255 - 291
  • [39] Refractive error, binocular vision and accommodation of children with Down syndrome
    Watt, Tanisha
    Robertson, Kenneth
    Jacobs, Robert John
    CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL OPTOMETRY, 2015, 98 (01) : 3 - 11
  • [40] Helicobacter pylori prevalence in healthy Mexican children: comparison between two non-invasive methods
    Martinez-Santos, Veronica, I
    Hernandez Catalan, Manuel
    Ojeda Salazar, Luis Octavio
    Orozco Gomez, Octavio Andrei
    Ines Lorenzo, Sandra
    Santos Gomez, Rayver
    Romero-Castro, Norma S.
    Reyes Rios, Roxana
    Martinez Carrillo, Dinorah Nashely
    Fernandez-Tilapa, Gloria
    PEERJ, 2021, 9