Abstract
The purpose of this article is to evaluate the agreement between the measurements of the Plusoptix A12C portable photorefractometer and the POTEC PRK-6000 benchtop autorefractometer. Objective refraction without cycloplegia was evaluated in 99 participants. Agreement was interpreted with Lin’s correlation and concordance coefficient (CCC), and Bland and Altman’s limits of agreement (LoA). As results, it could be observed that -in a scenario in which the median age of the subjects was 21 years (range 18 to 41) and 74.8% were female, with the autorefractometer- 73.7% were myopic eyes and 14.1% were hyperopic. Meanwhile, as observed with the photorefractometer, 45.5% were myopic and 14.1% hyperopic. Statistically and clinically significant differences were identified in the spherical equivalent (median difference -0.56, p=0.0041) (LdA 95% -2.57-1.63). The highest agreement was found in global J0 CCC 0.90 (95% CI 0.86-0.94), in myopes CCC 0.90 (95% CI 0.85-0.94), in hyperopes CCC 0.94 (95% CI 0.86-1.00) and in >20 years CCC 0.91 (95% CI 0.87-0.95). The overall degree of agreement was low for J45 0.20 CI95% (0.02-0.38). The LdA showed significant variability in refractive outcomes for both teams. It was concluded that the spherical equivalent is of higher negative value with the POTEC PRK-6000 autorefractometer. There is higher agreement for J0 and lower for J45. The few cases of hyperopia in the sample studied limit the generalization of the conclusions related to this refractive error.References
Mirzajani A, Qasemi F, Asharlous A, Yekta A, Doostdar A, Khabazkhoob M, et al. Are the results of handheld auto-refractometer as valid as the result of table-mounted refractometer? Jour Curr Ophthal. 2019;31(3): 305-11. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joco.2018.10.012
Vilaseca M, Arjona M, Pujol J, Peris E, Martínez V. Non-cycloplegic spherical equivalent refraction in adults: comparison of the double-pass system, retinoscopy, subjective refraction and a table-mounted autorefractor. Internat Jour Ophthal. 2013;6(5): 618-625. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2013.05.12
PRL-6000 Auto Ref-Keratometer [Internet]. 2008 [Citado el 27 de octubre de 2019]. Disponible en: http://www.potec.biz/bbs/prk_en.php?wr_id=50
Singman E, Matta N, Tian J, Brubaker A, Silbert D. A Comparison of the PlusoptiX S04 and A09 Photoscreeners. Strabismus. 2013;21(2): 85-87.
Bogdănici CM, Săndulache CM, Vasiliu R, Obadă O. Difference of refraction values between standard autorefractometry and Plusoptix. Rom Jour Ophthal. 2016;60(4): 249-254.
Plusoptix GmbH. Mobile Binocular Autorefractor. User Manual. Alemania: Plusoptix; 2019.
Prabakaran S, Fan Q, Wong T-, Saw S-, Dirani M, Chia A, et al. Cycloplegic refraction in preschool children: Comparisons between the hand-held autorefractor, table-mounted autorefractor and retinoscopy. Ophthal Physiol Opt. 2009;29: 422-426. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2008.00616.x
Baban T, Sammouh F, Ballouz H, Warrak E. A Comparison of Automated Refractions Using Plusoptix S04 Photoscreener, Nidek AR-20 Handheld Autorefractor and Nidek ARK-510A Auto Ref-Keratometer. JOJ Ophthalmology. 2017;2(4). Disponible en: https://juniperpublishers.com/jojo/pdf/JOJO.MS.ID.555594.pdf
Matta NS, Arnold RW, Singman EL, Silbert DI. Comparison Between the plusoptiX and MTI Photoscreeners. Arch Ophthal (1960). 2009;127(12): 1591-1595. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1001/archophthalmol.2009.294
Yan X, Jiao W, Li Z, Xu W, Li F, Wang L. Performance of the Plusoptix A09 photoscreener in detecting amblyopia risk factors in Chinese children attending an eye clinic. PloS one. 2015;10(6): e0126052. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0126052
Ying G, Maguire MG, Taylor Kulp M, Ciner E, Moore B, Pistilli M, et al. Comparison of cycloplegic refraction between Grand Seiko autorefractor and Retinomax autorefractor in the Vision in Preschoolers–Hyperopia in Preschoolers (VIP-HIP) Study. Jour AAPOS. 2017;21(3): 219-223.e3. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28528993/
Akil H, Keskin S, Çavdarli C. Comparison of the Refractive Measurements with Hand-held Autorefractometer, Table-mounted Autorefractometer and Cycloplegic Retinoscopy in Children. Kor Jour Ophthal. 2015;29(3): 178-184. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.3341/kjo.2015.29.3.178
Flitcroft DI, He M, Jonas JB, Jong M, Naidoo K, Ohno-Matsui K, et al. IMI – Defining and Classifying Myopia: A Proposed Set of Standards for Clinical and Epidemiologic Studies. Invest Ophthal Vis Sci. 2019;60(3): M20-30. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.18-25957
García Lozada DG. Retinoscopía estática: variabilidad interobservadores entre docentes y estudiantes de optometría en una institución universitaria de Bogotá D.C. [Artículo de investigación]. Bogotá: Universidad del Rosario; 2010. Disponible en: http://repository.urosario.edu.co/handle/10336/1801
Cortés-Reyes E, Rubio-Romero JA, Gaitán-Duarte H. Métodos estadísticos de evaluación de la concordancia y la reproducibilidad de pruebas diagnósticas. Revista Colombiana de Obstetricia y Ginecología. 2010;61(3): 247-255. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.18597/rcog.271
Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8(2): 135-160. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1177/096228029900800204
Horwood AM, Riddell PM. Receding and Disparity Cues Aid Relaxation of Accommodation. Optom Vis Scie. 2009;86(11): 1276-1286. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181bb41de
Won JY, Shin HY, Kim SY, Lee YC. A comparison of the Plusoptix S09 with an autorefractometer of noncycloplegics and cycloplegics in children. Medicine. 2016;95(35): e4596. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000004596
Saini V, Raina U, Gupta A, Goyal J, Anjum R, Saini P, et al. Comparison of Plusoptix S12R photoscreener with cycloplegic retinoscopy and autorefraction in pediatric age group. Ind Jour Ophthal. 2019;17(10): 1555-1559. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_1465_18
Payerols A, Eliaou C, Trezeguet V, Villain M, Daien V. Accuracy of PlusOptix A09 distance refraction in pediatric myopia and hyperopia. BMC ophthalmology. 2016;16(1): 72. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-016-0247-8
marlin_lancet327_310.
Arici C, Türk A, Keskin S, Ceylan OM, Mutlu FM, Hİ. Effect of cycloplegia on refractive errors measured with three different refractometers in school-age children. Turk J Med Sci. 2012;42(4): 657-665. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.3906/sag-1104-44
Morgan IG, Iribarren R, Fotouhi A, Grzybowski A. Cycloplegic refraction is the gold standard for epidemiological studies. Acta Ophthalmologica (Oxford, England). 2015;93(6): 581-585. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.12642
Krantz EM, Cruickshanks KJ, Klein BEK, Klein R, Huang G, Nieto FJ. Measuring Refraction in Adults in Epidemiological Studies. Archives of Ophthalmology (1960). 2010;128(1): 88-92. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1001/archophthalmol.2009.349
Keywords
reproducibility of results
optometry
adult