Comparison of an open view autorefractor with an open view aberrometer in determining peripheral refraction in children

Demir, Pelsin; Macedo, António Filipe; Chakraborty, Ranjay; Baskaran, Karthikeyan

doi:10.1016/j.optom.2021.12.002

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The finding of a more myopic SER with the Myopia Master compared with the HRK‐8000A (both instruments are monocular‐closed‐view devices) is in line with that reported for the Shin‐Nippon SRW‐5000 binocular open‐view autorefractor in comparison with a monocular‐closed‐view aberrometer 33 . In contrast, in a comparison of the SRW‐5000, which is based on the image size principle such as the Myopia Master, with a binocular open‐view aberrometer (COAS‐HD VR), a more myopic SER was reported for the wavefront sensor‐based device 34 . It was argued that this was because the measurements by the wavefront‐sensor‐based device cover a larger area of the pupil 34 .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…33 In contrast, in a comparison of the SRW-5000, which is based on the image size principle such as the Myopia Master, with a binocular open-view aberrometer (COAS-HD VR), a more myopic SER was reported for the wavefront sensor-based device. 34 It was argued that this was because the measurements by the wavefront-sensor-based device cover a larger area of the pupil. 34 This issue is circumvented in the HRK-8000A by automatic repositioning of its sensor within a central 2-mm zone to ensure that only the central area of the pupil is measured.…”

Section: Parametersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…34 It was argued that this was because the measurements by the wavefront-sensor-based device cover a larger area of the pupil. 34 This issue is circumvented in the HRK-8000A by automatic repositioning of its sensor within a central 2-mm zone to ensure that only the central area of the pupil is measured.…”

Section: Parametersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparing ocular biometry and autorefraction measurements from the Myopia Master with the IOLMaster 700 and the Huvitz HRK‐8000A autorefractor

Pedersen

Svarverud

Hagen

et al. 2023

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To compare axial length (AL) and corneal radius (CR) measured with the Oculus Myopia Master and the Zeiss IOLMaster 700, and cycloplegic refractive error measured with the Myopia Master and the Huvitz Auto Ref/Keratometer (HRK-8000A). Methods: The study included both eyes of 74 participants (16 male), with a mean (SD) age of 22.8 (3.7) years. The parameters indicated were measured under cycloplegia with these instruments: Myopia Master (AL, CR and refractive error), IOLMaster 700 (AL and CR) and HRK-8000A (refractive error and CR). Bland-Altman plots with mixed effects 95% limits of agreement (LoA) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were used to assess the agreement in ocular biometry between the Myopia Master and the IOLMaster 700, and for refractive error between the Myopia Master and the HRK-8000A. Results: The analysis included 139 eyes, of which 52 were myopic (spherical equivalent refractive error, SER ≤ −0.50 D), 32 emmetropic and 55 hyperopic (SER ≥ 0.50 D). The 95% LoA for AL between the Myopia Master and IOLMaster 700 was −0.097 to 0.089 mm. There was no mean difference in AL [mean (SD) = −0.004 (0.047) mm, p = 0.34]. There was a significant difference in mean CR, with that measured with the Myopia Master being flatter than that found with the IOLMaster 700 [0.035 (0.028) mm, p < 0.001]. The 95% LoA for CR was −0.02 to 0.09 mm. Compared with HRK-8000A, the Myopia Master measured a significantly more negative SER [−0.19 (0.33) D, p < 0.001], with 95% LoA of −0.86 to 0.46 D. Conclusion:The LoA for measurements of SER, CR and AL when comparing the Myopia Master with the HRK-8000A and the IOLMaster 700 were wider than deemed acceptable for making direct comparisons. This indicates that the instruments cannot be used interchangeably in clinical practice or research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Parametersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparing ocular biometry and autorefraction measurements from the Myopia Master with the IOLMaster 700 and the Huvitz HRK‐8000A autorefractor

Pedersen

Svarverud

Hagen

et al. 2023

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Gwiazda and Weber demonstrated that almost half of SER measurements using two models of autorefractor in a sample of 50 adults differed by more than 0.25 dioptres between instruments (Gwiazda & Weber, 2004). There is also evidence to suggest differences in accuracy and test–retest reliability when comparing cycloplegic versus non‐cycloplegic autorefraction in children (Cordonnier & Dramaix, 1999; Demir et al, 2023; Zhao et al, 2004). For example, Zhao and colleagues found that non‐cycloplegic measurements were consistently more negative (mean difference −1.23 ± 0.97 dioptres) than measuring after cycloplegia was induced, with particularly large differences in children with hyperoptic eyes (Zhao et al, 2004).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How can we better evaluate paediatric progression of myopia and associated risk factors? Lessons from the COVID‐19 pandemic: A systematic review

Lau,

Koh,

et al. 2023

Acta Ophthalmologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeDuring the COVID‐19 pandemic, home‐based and remote learning—particularly using electronic devices—was rapidly pushed out. Increased near‐work, screen time exposure and lack of outdoor time are risk factors that contribute to childhood myopia, but it is difficult to adopt recommendations from prior publications as a consistent limitation in the literature is the heterogeneity of research methodology. This review seeks to systematically evaluate how observational studies published during the pandemic have quantified and measured risk factors and myopia in school‐going children and adolescents.MethodsThree scientific databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus) were systematically searched from March 2020 to April 2022. Findings from relevant studies were descriptively summarised in relation to the PICOS‐based objective of the review.ResultsThe final sample of 13 studies included research from six countries and comprised 1 411 908 children and adolescents. The majority of studies (N = 10; 76.9%) used spherical equivalent refraction (SER) of −0.5 dioptres or lower as a common definition of myopia. Most studies (77.8%) measuring screen time exposure found it higher during COVID‐19 compared to pre‐COVID, but only one study used objective measurement of screen time. The average critical appraisal score of the sample was only 66.1%, with a considerable number of studies failing to identify and adjust for potential confounders.ConclusionFuture studies should consider emergent objective and validated measures of risk factors, account for potential a priori confounders and covariates and ensure more representativeness in the sociodemographic makeup of their samples.

show abstract

“…14 Each visit included measurements of distance visual acuity, axial length and corneal curvature with noncontact optical coherence biometry (IOLMaster 500, zeiss. com), height, weight and cycloplegic refraction 15 using the Shin-Nippon NVision-K 5001autorefractor (shin-nippon. jp/ ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incidence of myopia in Swedish schoolchildren: A longitudinal study

Demir,

Baskaran,

Ramos

et al. 2024

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe prevalence of myopia in Scandinavia tends to be lower than in other parts of the world. This study aimed to investigate the incidence of myopia and its predictors in Swedish children to characterise this trend.MethodsA 2‐year longitudinal study was conducted following a cohort of schoolchildren aged 8–16 years. Myopia was defined as a spherical equivalent refraction (SER) ≤ −0.50 D. The study enrolled 128 participants, 70 (55%) females with a mean age of 12.0 years (SD = 2.4).ResultsThe cumulative incidence of myopia during the follow‐up period was 5.5%, and the incidence rate of myopia was 3.2 cases per 100 person‐years. Participants with myopia at baseline exhibited a faster increase in refractive error during the follow‐up period. Likewise, participants with two myopic parents exhibited a more marked change towards myopia, regardless of their initial refractive error.ConclusionIn the current study, similar to prevalence, the incidence of myopia was low when compared with other parts of the world. These results lead us to formulate a new hypothesis that the normal emmetropisation process may be protected by low educational pressure practised in Sweden during early childhood. Further research is necessary to test this new hypothesis.

show abstract

Comparison of an open view autorefractor with an open view aberrometer in determining peripheral refraction in children

Cited by 3 publications

References 41 publications

Comparing ocular biometry and autorefraction measurements from the Myopia Master with the IOLMaster 700 and the Huvitz HRK‐8000A autorefractor

Comparing ocular biometry and autorefraction measurements from the Myopia Master with the IOLMaster 700 and the Huvitz HRK‐8000A autorefractor

How can we better evaluate paediatric progression of myopia and associated risk factors? Lessons from the COVID‐19 pandemic: A systematic review

Incidence of myopia in Swedish schoolchildren: A longitudinal study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About