Introduction: Photoscreeners have been shown to provide excellent measurements of the refractive error. However, whether they could be used for assessing cycloplegic refraction has not been examied. This study aimed to evaluate the agreement between cycloplegic and non-cycloplegic measurements obtained using a photoscreener and stationary autorefractor, respectively.
Methods: This study included all patients undergoing routine ophthalmic examination at the Hygeia Clinic (Poland) from June to July 2022. Each patient underwent non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic refraction assessments using the 2WIN photoscreener (Adaptica SRL, Padova, Italy) and an ARK-1 stationary autorefractor ARK-1 (Nidek Co Ltd., Tokyo, Japan), respectively. Each pair of assessments was conducted in random order, and all values were determined at a vertical distance of 12 mm. The agreement between cycloplegic and non-cycloplegic measurements was assessed using paired t-tests, Bland-Altman and ABCD ellipsoids.
Results: This analysis included 82 patients, of which 52 were female. Their mean age was 34.39 ± 13.13 years. The non-cycloplegic spherical equivalent (SE) did not differ significantly between the 2WIN (- 1.22 ± 2.45) and ARK-1 (- 1.19 ± 2.96) devices (p = 0.580). However, the cycloplegic SE values demonstrated more negative values with the 2WIN device (- 1.13 ± 2.19) than with the ARK-1 device (- 0.75 ± 3.03; p = 0.007). The non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic measurements were strongly correlated between the devices (r = 0.9473 and 0.9411, respectively). However, the correlation between their cycloplegic shifts in SE was low (r = 0.2645). Ellipsoid refraction aligned better non-cycloplegic (ARK-1 = 1.00; 2WIN = 1.74) than with cycloplegic refraction (ARK-1 = 1.43; 2WIN = 1.90).
Conclusion: While the cycloplegic measurements obtained with the 2WIN photoscreener were strongly correlated with those obtained with the ARK-1 stationary autorefractor for most of the analyzed parameters, they should not be considered interchangeable.
Keywords: Autorefractometry; Cycloplegic measurements; Photoscreeners; Refractive errors.
© 2024. The Author(s).