The influence of cycloplegia in objective refraction

The purpose of this study was to compare refractions measured with an autorefractor and by retinoscopy with and without cycloplegia. The objective refractions were performed in 199 right eyes from 199 healthy young adults with a mean age of 21.6 ± 2.66 years. The measurements were performed first without cycloplegia and repeated 30 min later with cycloplegia. Data were analysed using Fourier decomposition of the power profile. More negative values of component M and J0 were given by non‐cycloplegic autorefraction compared with cycloplegic autorefraction (p < 0.0001). However more positive values for the J45 vector were given by non‐cycloplegic autorefraction, although this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.233). By retinoscopy, more negative values of component M were obtained with non‐cycloplegic retinoscopy (p < 0.0001); for the cylindrical vectors J0 and J45 the retinoscopy without cycloplegia yields more negative values (p = 0.234; p = 0.112, respectively). Accepting that differences between cycloplegic and non‐cycloplegic retinoscopy are only due to the accommodative response, the present results confirm that when performed by an experienced clinician, retinoscopy is a more reliable method to obtain the objective starting point for refraction under non‐cycloplegic conditions.

[1]  S. Isenberg,et al.  Use of the HARK autorefractor in children. , 2001, American journal of ophthalmology.

[2]  G E McCaghrey,et al.  Clinical evaluation of a range of autorefractors , 1993, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[3]  A J Adams,et al.  The repeatability of measurement of the ocular components. , 1992, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[4]  D A Goss,et al.  Relationship of accommodative response and nearpoint phoria in a sample of myopic children. , 1999, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[5]  J S Wolffsohn,et al.  Clinical evaluation of the Shin-Nippon SRW-5000 autorefractor in adults. , 2001, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[6]  J. Gwiazda,et al.  The Correction of Myopia Evaluation Trial (COMET): design and general baseline characteristics. , 2001, Controlled clinical trials.

[7]  D. Altman,et al.  Comparing methods of measurement: why plotting difference against standard method is misleading , 1995, The Lancet.

[8]  M. Mazow,et al.  Accuracy of the Nidek ARK-900 objective refractor in comparison with retinoscopy in children ages 3 to 18 years. , 1998, American journal of ophthalmology.

[9]  M A Bullimore,et al.  Use of statistics for comparing two measurement methods. , 1994, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[10]  M. Dramaix,et al.  Screening for refractive errors in children: accuracy of the hand held refractor Retinomax to screen for astigmatism , 1999, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[11]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[12]  Kenneth J. Ciuffreda,et al.  Near-vision lens effects on nearwork-induced transient myopia , 1999 .

[13]  O Y Chan,et al.  Comparison of Cycloplegic and Noncycloplegic Retinoscopy in Chinese Pre-School Children , 1994, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[14]  L. Thibos,et al.  Power Vectors: An Application of Fourier Analysis to the Description and Statistical Analysis of Refractive Error , 1997, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[15]  D. Salchow,et al.  Comparison of objective and subjective refraction before and after laser in situ keratomileusis. , 1999, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[16]  B. Nayak,et al.  A comparison of cycloplegic and manifest refractions on the NR-1000F (an objective Auto Refractometer). , 1987, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[17]  B. Nayak,et al.  Critical evaluation of the NR-1000F Auto Refractometer. , 1986, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[18]  A. Beckett,et al.  AKUFO AND IBARAPA. , 1965, Lancet.

[19]  G. Jacobsen,et al.  Clinical evaluation of the Allergan Humphrey 500 autorefractor and the Nidek AR-1000 autorefractor. , 1996, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[20]  P. Allen,et al.  Repeatability and Validity of the PowerRefractor and the Nidek AR600-A in an Adult Population with Healthy Eyes , 2003, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[21]  Leslie Hyman,et al.  A randomized clinical trial of progressive addition lenses versus single vision lenses on the progression of myopia in children. , 2003, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[22]  D A Goss,et al.  Reliability of refraction--a literature review. , 1996, Journal of the American Optometric Association.

[23]  D. Mutti,et al.  Repeatability and validity of astigmatism measurements. , 1999, Journal of refractive surgery.

[24]  J M Bland,et al.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement , 1986 .

[25]  John Simes,et al.  Improving interpretation of clinical studies by use of confidence levels, clinical significance curves, and risk-benefit contours , 2001, The Lancet.

[26]  G K Hung,et al.  Adaptation model of nearwork‐induced transient myopia , 1999, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[27]  Monique Cordonnier,et al.  Non-cycloplegic screening for refractive errors in children with the hand-held autorefractor Retinomax: Final results and comparison with non-cycloplegic photoscreening , 2001, Strabismus.

[28]  B. Nayak,et al.  An evaluation of the NR-1000F Auto Refractometer in high refractive errors. , 1987, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[29]  Niall C Strang,et al.  Clinical evaluation of patient tolerance to autorefractor prescriptions , 1998, Clinical & experimental optometry.

[30]  J M Miller,et al.  Reproducibility and accuracy of measurements with a hand held autorefractor in children , 1997, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[31]  J. Wolffsohn,et al.  Clinical Evaluation of the Shin-Nippon NVision-K 5001/Grand Seiko WR-5100K Autorefractor , 2003, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[32]  Jane Gwiazda,et al.  Comparison of Spherical Equivalent Refraction and Astigmatism Measured with Three Different Models of Autorefractors , 2002, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[33]  R E Fusaro,et al.  The Repeatability of Automated and Clinician Refraction , 1998, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[34]  M Millodot,et al.  Clinical evaluation of the Canon Autoref R-1. , 1985, American journal of optometry and physiological optics.

[35]  M. Rosenfield,et al.  Repeatability of Subjective and Objective Refraction , 1995, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[36]  W. F. Harris,et al.  Clinical Measurement, Artifact, and Data Analysis in Dioptric Power Space , 2001, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.