2026-06-27T23:58:18Zhttps://docta.ucm.es/rest/oai/request
oai:docta.ucm.es:20.500.14352/733492023-08-27T12:46:06Zcom_20.500.14352_14col_20.500.14352_15
Docta Complutense author Carracedo Rodríguez, Juan Gonzalo author Carpena Torres, Carlos author Pastrana Robles, Cristina author Rodríguez -Lafora Lorente, María author Serramito Blanco, María author Privado Aroco, Ana author Espinosa Vidal, Teresa M. 2023-06-22T12:56:32Z 2023-06-22T12:56:32Z 2023-04-03 1888-4296 10.1016/j.optom.2023.03.001 https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/73349 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2023.03.001 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1888429623000109 Purpose: To assess the agreement between the Eye Refract, an instrument to perform subjective automated refraction, and the traditional subjective refraction, as the gold standard, in young hyperopes under noncycloplegic and cycloplegic conditions. Methods: A cross-section and randomized study was carried out, involving 42 participants (18.2 ± 7.7 years, range 6 to 31 years). Only one eye was chosen for the analysis, randomly. An optometrist conducted the refraction with the Eye Refract, while another different optometrist conducted the traditional subjective refraction. Spherical equivalent (M), cylindrical components (J0 and J45), and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) were compared between both refraction methods under noncycloplegic and cycloplegic conditions. A Bland-Altman analysis was performed to assess the agreement (accuracy and precision) between both refraction methods. Results: Without cycloplegia, the Eye Refract showed significantly lower values of hyperopia than the traditional subjective refraction (p < 0.009), the mean difference (accuracy) and its 95% limits of agreement (precision) being -0.31 (+0.85, -1.47) D. Conversely, there were no statistical differences between both refraction methods under cycloplegic conditions (p ≥ 0.05). Regarding J0 and J45, both refraction methods manifested no significant differences between them under noncycloplegic and cycloplegic conditions (p ≥ 0.05). Finally, the Eye Refract significantly improved CDVA (0.04 ± 0.01 logMAR) compared with the traditional subjective refraction without cycloplegia (p = 0.01). Conclusions: The Eye Refract is presented as a useful instrument to determine the refractive error in young hyperopes, the use of cycloplegia being necessary to obtain accurate and precise spherical refraction. eng Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 España Accuracy and precision of automated subjective refraction in young hyperopes under cycloplegia journal article URL https://docta.ucm.es/bitstreams/6e7d2937-0833-4681-97e6-b514dd66be6c/download File MD5 8d1e31788ca6d4a431e36feeeac44f42 1734372 application/pdf 1-s2.0-S1888429623000109-main.pdf