Comparison of Self Refraction accuracy with Cycloplegic Subjective Refraction in Young Adults https://doi.org/10.60787/NMJ-64-3-186
Main Article Content
Keywords
self refraction, cycloplegic subjective refraction, myopia, refractive error, duochrome
Abstract
Background: Uncorrected refractive error is one of the major causes of blindness. Self-refraction methods are currently practised to correct refractive errors. Self-adjustable eyeglasses are available easily in the present online buying era. Hence this study aimed to compare the visual and refractive outcomes between Self-refraction (SR) eyeglasses and Cycloplegic subjective Refraction (CSR).
Methodology: This observational cross-sectional study included 59 participants (21 males and 38 females) between the age of 18 and to 30years with the refractive error between +3.00D to -6.00D took part in this study. Subjects with a previous history of non-strabismic binocular vision anomaly, astigmatic error, pathological eye problems, ocular surgery or trauma were excluded from the study. The subjects were allowed to estimate their refractive error with DialVision eyeglasses followed by CSR, which was performed by a single examiner. The visual and refractive outcomes of SR and CSR were collected and analyzed.
Result: The study participant's mean age was 22(2) years. The comparison of visual acuity and duo-chrome between SR and CSR using Paired T-test showed a statistically significant difference (P<0.01). Visual acuity attained from SR resulted in a mean acuity of 0.14(0.05) logMAR compared to CSR 0.002(0.007) logMAR. The duo-chrome test identified 92% of participants being under-corrected with SR. No statistically significant difference was observed in contrast sensitivity and cover test (P>0.01).
Conclusion: Visual acuity with SR was acceptable but wasn’t better than CSR. Appreciable under correction of refractive error with SR raises concern. Encouraging a patient to correct their refractive error without a comprehensive eye examination can lead to various adverse effects. Even though SR might bring a brief relief towards the burden of uncorrected refractive error, dispensing spectacle based on standard refraction procedure is imperative for good visual performance.
References
2.World Health Organization. Universal eye health: a global action plan 2014-2019.
3.Zhang M, Zhang R, He M, Liang W, Li X, She L, Yang Y, MacKenzie G, Silver JD, Ellwein L,Moore B. Self correction of refractive error among young people in rural China: results of cross-sectionalinvestigation. BMJ. 2011 Aug 9;343.
4.Dandona R, Dandona L, Srinivas M, Sahare P, Narsaiah S, Munoz SR, et al. Refractive error in children in a rural population in India. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2002;43:615-22.
5.Yoo SG, Cho MJ, Kim US, Baek SH. Cycloplegic refraction in hyperopic children: effectivenesssof a 0.5% tropicamide and 0.5% phenylephrine addition to 1% cyclopentolate regimen. KoreanJournalof Ophthalmology. 2017;31:249-56.
6.Li T, Zhou X, Zhu J, Tang X, Gu X. Effect of cycloplegia on the measurement of refractive errorinChinesechildren. Clinical and Experimental Optometry. 2019;102:160.
7.Sanfilippo PG, Chu BS, Bigault O, Kearns LS, Boon MY, Young TL, Hammond CJ, Hewitt AW,MackeyDA.Whatistheappropriateagecut‐offforcycloplegiainrefraction? Actaophthalmologica.2014;92:e458-62.
8.Ilechie AA, AbokyiS,Owusu-AnsahA, Boadi-Kusi SB, Denkyira AK, Abraham CH. Self-refraction accuracy with adjustable spectacles among children in Ghana. Optometry and VisionScience.2015;
92:456-63.
9.Smith K, Weissberg E, Travison TG. Alternative methods of refraction: a comparison of threen techniques. Optometry and Vision Science. 2010;87:E176-82.
10.Gudlavalleti VS, AllaghKP, Gudlavalleti AS. Self-adjustable glasses in the developing world. Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, NZ). 2014;8:405.
11.Barbero S, Rubinstein J. Adjustable-focus lenses based on the Alvarez principle. Journal of Optics. 2011;13:125705.
12.Camp AS, Shane TS, Kang J, Thomas B, Pole C, Lee RK. Evaluating Self-Refraction and Ready-Made Spectacles for Treatment of Uncorrected Refractive Error. Ophthalmic epidemiology. 2018;25:392-8.
13.Moore B, Johnson C, Lyons S, Quinn N, Tattersall P, Silver J, Crosby D, He M, Elwein L,Mackenzie G, Congdon N. The Boston Child Self-Refraction Study. Boston, MA: AmericanAcademyofOptometry.2011 Oct 12.
14.Majumder C, Ling LK. The effect of under and over refractive correction of myopia on binocular visual acuity and heterophoria. Bull EnvPharmacol Life Sci. 2015;4:157-63.
15.Kulp MT, Ciner E, Maguire M, Moore B, Pentimonti J, Pistilli M, Cyert L, Candy TR, Quinn G,Ying GS, VIP-HIP Study Group. Uncorrected hyperopia and preschoolearly literacy: results ofthe vision in preschoolers–hyperopia in preschoolers (VIP-HIP) study. Ophthalmology. 2016;123:681-9.
16.Black BC. The influence of refractive error management on the natural history and treatment outcome of accommodative esotropia (an American Ophthalmological Society thesis). Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2006;104:303.
17.He M, Congdon N, MacKenzie G, Zeng Y, Silver JD, Ellwein L. The child self-refraction study:resultsfrom urbanChinesechildren inGuangzhou. Ophthalmology.2011;118:1162-9.
18.Annadanam A, Varadaraj V, Mudie LI, Liu A, Plum WG, White JK, Collins ME, Friedman DS.Comparisonofself-refractionusingasimpledevice,USee,withmanifestrefractioninadults.PLOS one. 2018;13:e0192055.
19.Chung K, Mohidin N, O’Leary DJ. Undercorrection of myopia enhances rather than inhibitsmyopiaprogression. Vision Research. 2002;42:2555-9.
20.Gomez-Salazar F, Campos-Romero A, Gomez-Campaña H, Cruz-Zamudio C, Chaidez-Felix M,Leon-Sicairos N, Velazquez-Roman J, Flores-Villaseñor H, Muro-Amador S, Guadron-LlanosAM, Martinez-Garcia JJ. Refractive errors among children, adolescents and adults attending eyeclinicsin Mexico.International Journal of ophthalmology. 2017;10:796.
21.Leung JT, Brown B. Progression of myopia in Hong Kong Chinese schoolchildren is slowed bywearing progressive lenses. Optometry and vision science: official publication of the American Academy of Optometry. 1999;76:346-54.
22.Adler D, Millodot M. The possible effect of undercorrection on myopic progression in children.Clinicaland Experimental Optometry. 2006;89:315-21.
23.Liou SW, Chiu CJ. Myopia and contrast sensitivity function. Current eye research. 2001;22:81-4.
24.Olatunji LK, Abdulsalam LB, Lukman A, Abduljaleel A, Yusuf I. Academic Implications ofUncorrected Refractive Error: AStudy of Sokoto Metropolitan Schoolchildren. Nigerian MedicalJournal:Journal of theNigeriaMedical Association. 2019;60:295.
25.Sheeladevi S, Seelam B, Nukella PB, Borah RR, Ali R, Keay L. Prevalence of refractive errors, uncorrected refractive error, and presbyopia in adults in India: A systematic review. Indian J Ophthalmol
2019; 67: 583.
26.Dial Vision. Available from: https://www.asseenontvlive.com/product/dial-vision/. [Last accessed on 2022 Dec 23].
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
This is an open-access journal and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share-Alike License 4.0. This licence allows users to download and share, remix, tweak and build upon the article for non-commercial purposes, so long as the original authorship is acknowledged and the new creations are licensed under identical terms.