Cycloplegia improves the inter-optometrist repeatability of subjective refraction
Background: Since accommodation may be a source of error affecting the inter-optometrist repeatability of subjective refraction, this study investigated whether the use of cycloplegia could improve this repeatability. Methods: A randomized cross-sectional study was conducted on 42 young hyperopes (1...
| Autores: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2024 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM) |
| Repositorio: | Docta Complutense |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:docta.ucm.es:20.500.14352/116937 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/116937 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Repeatability Agreement Subjective refraction Cycloplegia Cyclopentolate Tropicamide Óptica y optometría Ciencias 32 Ciencias Médicas |
| Sumario: | Background: Since accommodation may be a source of error affecting the inter-optometrist repeatability of subjective refraction, this study investigated whether the use of cycloplegia could improve this repeatability. Methods: A randomized cross-sectional study was conducted on 42 young hyperopes (18.2 ± 7.7 years, range 6 to 31 years). Subjective refraction was performed by two different optometrists in two measurement sessions: one day without cycloplegia and, on a different day, with cycloplegia, in random order. The inter-optometrist repeatability of all refractive variables (M, J0, and J45) was analyzed, selecting one eye randomly, in terms of the 95% confidence interval of repeatability (r). Results: No statistically significant differences were found between the optometrists for any refractive variable, both with and without cycloplegia (p ≥ 0.05). Furthermore, no correlation was found between participants’ age and the refractive differences between optometrists under both cycloplegic conditions (p ≥ 0.05). However, the use of cycloplegia improved the inter-optometrist repeatability of M (r = 0.37 D) compared to the non-cycloplegic measurements (r = 0.62 D). Conclusions: These results suggest that accommodation in young hyperopes is likely a primary source of error that could explain the discrepancies in subjective refraction between optometrists. |
|---|