Comparison Of Subjective Refraction Under Cycloplegia Versus Post Mydriatic Refraction In Pediatric Population

Subjective Refraction under Cycloplegia Versus Post Mydriatic Refraction

Authors

  • Ammara Tahir Department of Optometry, King Edward Medical University, Lahore, Pakistan
  • Irfana Bibi Department of Optometry, King Edward Medical University, Lahore, Pakistan
  • Faiza Akhtar Department of Vision Sciences, University of Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan
  • Tahira Jabeen Department of Optometry, Jinnah Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan
  • Muhammad Arslan Ashraf Department of Ophthalmology, Mayo Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan
  • Sobia Yousaf Department of Optometry, Jinnah Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan
  • Tallat Anwar Faridi University Institute of Public Health, The University of Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54393/pbmj.v5i9.781

Keywords:

Refraction, Cycloplegia, Post Mydriatic

Abstract

Reduced vision throughout early childhood is typically due to errors of refraction. Objective: To compare refractive status in children (age 5 to 15 years) checked with subjective refraction under cycloplegia versus post mydiatric test (PMT). Methods: Comparative cross-sectional study was conducted in pediatric ophthalmic clinic of College of ophthalmology and Allied vision sciences /Mayo hospital Lahore including 120 non-pathological eyes of 60 subjects. Individuals with nystagmus and deviation of eyes were excluded. Power of SE (P1) was taken as proposed number of glasses to be dispensed. After three days PMT was done and prescription of glasses with BCVA (P2) was noted and prescribed. At PMT (P2-P1) was noted and evaluated. All data entered and analyzed by using SPSS-23. P-value equal or less than 0.05 was taken as significant. Results: Among 120 eyes (n=120), the distribution of myopia was 57.5% and hyperopia was 42%.  The mean age of 60 individuals (female: 35% and male: 65%) was 9.47 ± 2.50 years. Among 120 eyes (n=120), the distribution of myopia was 57.5% (n = 69 eyes) and hyperopia was 42% (n = 51 eyes). Interclass correlation: Two-way mixed effects model where people effects are random and measures effects are fixed. a. The estimator is the same, whether the interaction effect is present or not. b. Type C intraclass correlation coefficients using a consistency definition. The between-measure variance is excluded from the denominator variance. c. This estimate is computed assuming the interaction effect is absent, because it is not estimable otherwise.

References

Jarwal PN, Singh R. Evaluation of amblyopia in school going children. DJO. 2020 Jan; 30(3).

Almudhaiyan T, Alhamzah A, AlShareef M, Alrasheed A, Jaffar R, Alluhidan A, Al-Hazazi M, Aldebasi T. The prevalence of refractive errors among Saudi adults in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Saudi Journal of Ophthalmology. 2020 Nov; 34(1):30-34. doi: 10.4103/1319-4534.301297

Sirang Z, Nanji K, Jeeva IK, Khan ZW, Kazmi HS. Types of refractive errors in northern Pakistan: a hospital-based survey. Ophthalmology Journal. 2019; 4:86-91. doi: 10.5603/OJ.2019.0010

Hashemi H, Yekta A, Nabovati P, Khoshhal F, Riazi A, Khabazkhoob M. The prevalence of refractive errors in 5–15 year-old population of two underserved rural areas of Iran. Journal of Current Ophthalmology. 2018 Sep; 30(3):250-4. doi: 10.1016/j.joco.2017.05.004

Yasir ZH, Basakran FA, Alhumaid NA, Balous MA, Banaeem AS, Al-Shangiti AK, et al. Prevalence and determinants of refractive error and related ocular morbidities among Saudi adolescence population in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Oman Journal of Ophthalmology. 2022 Mar; 15(1):25-30. doi: 10.4103/ojo.ojo_114_21

Agrawal D, Sahu A, Agrawal D. Prevalence of ocular morbidities among school children in Raipur district, India. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology. 2020 Feb; 68(2):340-344. doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_1454_19

Fries T. Vision disorders in Ohio’s children vision screenings vs. comprehensive eye exams. Public Health Review. 2019 Mar; 2(1).

Basheikh A, Howldar S, Basendwah M, Baqais R, Bamakrid M, Alhibshi N. Astigmatism among children in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: prevalence and associated factors. Middle East Journal of Family Medicine. 2021 Feb; 19(2). doi: 10.5742/MEWFM.2021.93976

Yassa ET and Ünlü C. Comparison of Autorefraction and Photorefraction with and without Cycloplegia Using 1% Tropicamide in Preschool Children. Journal of Ophthalmology. 2019 May; 2019:1487013. doi: 10.1155/2019/1487013

Aboumourad R and Anderson HA. Comparison of Dynamic Retinoscopy and Autorefraction for Measurement of Accommodative Amplitude. Optometry and Vision Science. 2019 Sep; 96(9):670-677. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000001423

Kim SH and Lee YC. Availability of cycloplegic refraction in children and adolescents. Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society. 2020 Mar; 61(3):274-80. doi: 10.3341/jkos.2020.61.3.274

Curi I, Nakayama SA, Pereira ÉM, Hopker LM, Ejzenbaum F, Barcellos RB, et al. Brazilian guideline for pediatric cycloplegia and mydriasis. Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia. 2022 Mar; S0004-27492022005005215. doi: 10.5935/0004-2749.20230049

Ashok A. Refraction and glass prescription in pediatric age group. Kerala Journal of Ophthalmology. 2019 Jan; 31(1):78. doi: 10.4103/kjo.kjo_5_19

Saxena R and Sharma P. Pediatric Ophthalmology Expert Group. National consensus statement regarding pediatric eye examination, refraction, and amblyopia management. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology. 2020 Feb; 68(2):325-332. doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_471_19

Sun YY, Wei SF, Li SM, Hu JP, Yang XH, Cao K, et al. Cycloplegic refraction by 1% cyclopentolate in young adults: is it the gold standard? The Anyang University Students Eye Study (AUSES). British Journal of Ophthalmology. 2018 Jun. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2018-312199

Ayadi A, Ademola-Popoola DS, Olatunji FO. Cycloplegic Effect of 1% Atropine Compared to 1% Cyclopentolate− 1% Tropicamide Combination in Children. Nigerian Journal of Ophthalmology. 2020 Jul; 28(2):70. doi: 10.4103/njo.njo_3_20

Wakayama A, Nishina S, Miki A, Utsumi T, Sugasawa J, Hayashi T, et al. Incidence of side effects of topical atropine sulfate and cyclopentolate hydrochloride for cycloplegia in Japanese children: a multicenter study. Japenese Journal of Ophthalmology. 2018 Sep; 62(5):531-536. doi: 10.1007/s10384-018-0612-7

Theruveethi N, Ve RS, Srinivasan K. Comparison of endpoint of subjective cycloplegic refraction with artificial aperture and post-mydriatic test among adults with refractive error. Taiwan Journal of Ophthalmology. 2019 Sep; 10(3):212-216. doi: 10.4103/tjo.tjo_36_19

Yang LJ. Evaluation of cycloplegic effectiveness of atropine, cyclopentolate and tropicamide. International Eye Science. 2018; 1665-8.

Hashemi H, Khabazkhoob M, Asharlous A, Yekta A, Emamian MH, Fotouhi A. Overestimation of hyperopia with autorefraction compared with retinoscopy under cycloplegia in school-age children. British Journal of Ophthalmology. 2018 Dec; 102(12):1717-22. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-311594

Kauser F, Gupta Y, Amitava AK, Saxena J, Raza SA, Masood A, et al. Do all children need a cycloplegic refraction? A comparison of Mohindra's versus cycloplegic refraction. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology. 2020 Nov; 68(11):2458-2461. doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_229_20

Downloads

Published

2022-09-30

How to Cite

Tahir, A. ., Bibi, I. ., Akhtar , F. ., Jabeen, T. ., Arslan Ashraf, M., Yousaf, S. ., & Anwar Faridi, T. . (2022). Comparison Of Subjective Refraction Under Cycloplegia Versus Post Mydriatic Refraction In Pediatric Population: Subjective Refraction under Cycloplegia Versus Post Mydriatic Refraction. Pakistan BioMedical Journal, 5(9), 36–40. https://doi.org/10.54393/pbmj.v5i9.781

Issue

Section

Original Article

Most read articles by the same author(s)