A Comparion of Autorefraction and ubjective Refraction With and Without Cycloplegia in Primary chool Children Original Reearch Article

Purpoe To evaluate the accuracy of autorefraction uing three autorefractor comparing to ubjective refraction in diagnoing refractive error in children. Deign A cro-ectional tudy. Method etting: Community baed tudy. tudy population: 117 children ampled from primary chool. procedure: All ubject underwent autorefraction uing three auto refractor and ubjective refraction with and without cycloplegia. main outcome meaure: pherical power, cylindrical power, and pherical equivalence (E). Reult Without cycloplegia, the mean E were ignificantly different for Retinomax K plu 2 (−1.55 diopter, D 2.37 diopter; 95% CI −1.98 to −1.12; P < .0001) and Canon RF10 (−1.11 diopter; D 2.61 diopter; 95% CI −1.59 to −0.64; P = .0023) compared with monocular ubjective refraction (−0.80 diopter; D 2.25 diopter; 95% CI −1.21 to −0.35). Mean E wa ignificantly different for Grand eiko WR5100K (−0.79 diopter; D 2.40 diopter; 95% CI −1.23 to −0.35; P = .0002) compared with binocular ubjective refraction (−0.62 diopter; D 2.51 diopter; 95% CI −1.07 to −0.16). With cycloplegia, there wa no ignificant difference in mean E between refraction method. enitivity and pecificity reult for the diagnoi of myopia: Without cycloplegia: Retinomax K plu 2 (enitivity 1.0, pecificity 0.51); Canon RF10 (enitivity 0.92, pecificity 0.81); and Grand eiko WR5100K (enitivity 0.91, pecificity 0.98). With cycloplegia: Retinomax K plu 2 (enitivity 0.97, pecificity 0.99); Canon RF10 (enitivity 0.97, pecificity 0.96); and Grand eiko WR5100K (enitivity 1.0, pecificity 0.97). Concluion Under noncycloplegic condition, all three autorefractor have a tendency toward minu over correction in children reulting in over diagnoi of myopia. However autorefractor were accurate under cycloplegic condition.