Volume 32, Issue 9 (December 2021)
Studies in Medical Sciences 2021, 32(9): 660-666 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: IR.ZAUMS.REC.1396.008
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Payandeh A, Nakhjavanpour N, Azizi H, Khezrzadeh S, Mahjoob M, Rakhshandadi T. EVALUATION OF SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE REFRACTION AGREEMENTS IN MYOPIC INDIVIDUALS REFERRED TO RAZMJOU-MOGHADDAM CLINIC IN ZAHEDAN, 2018. Studies in Medical Sciences 2021; 32 (9) :660-666
URL: http://umj.umsu.ac.ir/article-1-5610-en.html
URL: http://umj.umsu.ac.ir/article-1-5610-en.html
Abolfazl Payandeh 
, Neda Nakhjavanpour * , Hajar Azizi , Soraya Khezrzadeh , Monireh Mahjoob , Tahereh Rakhshandadi
, Neda Nakhjavanpour * , Hajar Azizi , Soraya Khezrzadeh , Monireh Mahjoob , Tahereh Rakhshandadi
Lecturer, Department of Optometry, School of Rehabilitation, Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Zahedan, Iran (Corresponding Author) , neda.nakhjavanpoor@gmail.com
Abstract: (2104 Views)
Background & Aims: Refraction, which is an essential component of vision care, is the determination of the amount of refractive error in the eyes. According to the existence of deprivation in different regions and the high prevalence of myopia, this study aimed to estimate and compare the agreement among three refraction methods including subjective and objective (autorefraction and retinoscopy).
Materials & Methods: This descriptive-analytical cross-sectional study was performed on 80 myopic individuals (160 eyes) referred to Razmjou-Moghaddam Clinic in Zahedan City from April to July in 2018 using a convenience sampling method. Visual acuity was first measured with a Snellen chart with and without correction and then the refractive error was determined by subjective refraction method using trial frame and objective refraction by autorefraction and retinoscope. The agreement between the parameters of sphere and astigmatism and the astigmatism axis between the three methods was calculated using the intra-class correlation coefficient index. P-value less than 5% was considered as a significant level.
Results: The mean age was 23.0±4.1 years. Most of the participants were female (70%). Also, most of them were students (87.5%). Participants had, on average, 0.6±2.8 hours of near-eye work per day. The agreements between the three methods in measuring the spherical power of refractive errors, power, and cylinder axis were estimated to be 99%, 89%, and 69%, respectively, which were statistically significant (p<0.001). Furthermore, the mean power of the sphere was estimated to be more negative by the autorefraction method than the subjective refraction and retinoscope.
Conclusion: According to the high prevalence of myopia, the existence of deprivation in different regions of Sistan-and-Baluchestan province, and based on the available facilities, it seems that the subjective refraction method can be used as an alternative to objective refraction methods for evaluation of the refractive errors.
Materials & Methods: This descriptive-analytical cross-sectional study was performed on 80 myopic individuals (160 eyes) referred to Razmjou-Moghaddam Clinic in Zahedan City from April to July in 2018 using a convenience sampling method. Visual acuity was first measured with a Snellen chart with and without correction and then the refractive error was determined by subjective refraction method using trial frame and objective refraction by autorefraction and retinoscope. The agreement between the parameters of sphere and astigmatism and the astigmatism axis between the three methods was calculated using the intra-class correlation coefficient index. P-value less than 5% was considered as a significant level.
Results: The mean age was 23.0±4.1 years. Most of the participants were female (70%). Also, most of them were students (87.5%). Participants had, on average, 0.6±2.8 hours of near-eye work per day. The agreements between the three methods in measuring the spherical power of refractive errors, power, and cylinder axis were estimated to be 99%, 89%, and 69%, respectively, which were statistically significant (p<0.001). Furthermore, the mean power of the sphere was estimated to be more negative by the autorefraction method than the subjective refraction and retinoscope.
Conclusion: According to the high prevalence of myopia, the existence of deprivation in different regions of Sistan-and-Baluchestan province, and based on the available facilities, it seems that the subjective refraction method can be used as an alternative to objective refraction methods for evaluation of the refractive errors.
References
1. Grosvenor T. Primary care optometry. Butterworth_heinemann; 2007. [Google Book]
2. Dolgin E. The myopia boom. Nature 2015;519(7543):276-8. [DOI:10.1038/519276a] [PMID]
3. Foster PJ, Jiang Y. Epidemiology of myopia. EYE 2014;28(2):202-8. [DOI:10.1038/eye.2013.280] [PMID] [PMCID]
4. Fricke TR, Holden BA, Wilson DA. Global cost of correcting vision impairment from uncorrected refractive error. Bull World Health Organ 2012;90(10):728-38. [DOI:10.2471/BLT.12.104034] [PMID] [PMCID]
5. Smith TS, Frick KD, Holden BA, Fricke TR, Naidoo KS Potential lost productivity resulting from the global burden of uncorrected refractive error. Bull World Health Organ 2009;87(6):431-7. [DOI:10.2471/BLT.08.055673] [PMID] [PMCID]
6. Pascolini D, Mariotti SP. Global estimates of visual impairment: 2010. Br J Ophthalmol 2012;96(5):614-8. [DOI:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2011-300539] [PMID]
7. WHO. Global eye care targets endorsed by Member States at the 74th World Health Assembly [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2022 Feb 15]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news/item/27-05-2021-global-eye-care-targets-endorsed-by-member-states-at-the-74th-world-health-assembly [URL]
8. Mahjoob M, Heydarian S, Nejati J, Ansari-Moghaddam A, Ravandeh N. Prevalence of refractive errors among primary school children in a tropical area, Southeastern Iran. Asian Pac J Trop Biomed 2016;6(2):181-4. [DOI:10.1016/j.apjtb.2015.10.008]
9. Rosenfield M, Chiu NN. Repeatability of subjective and objective refraction. Optom Vis Sci 1995;72(8):577-9. [DOI:10.1097/00006324-199508000-00007] [PMID]
10. Farook M, Venkatramani J, Gazzard G, Cheng A, Tan D, Saw SM. Comparisons of the handheld autorefractor, table-mounted autorefractor, and subjective refraction in Singapore adults. Optom Vis Sci 2005; 82(12): 1066-70. [DOI:10.1097/01.opx.0000192344.72997.7c] [PMID]
11. DeCarlo DK, McGwin G, Searcey K, Gao L, Snow M, Waterbor J, et al. Trial frame refraction versus autorefraction among new patients in a low vision clinic. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013; 54(1): 19-24. [DOI:10.1167/iovs.12-10508] [PMID] [PMCID]
12. Jorge J, Queiros A, Almeida GB, Parafita MA Retinoscopy/autorefraction: which is the best starting point for a noncycloplegic refraction? Optom Vis Sci 2005; 82(1):64-8. [Google Scholar]
13. Choong YE, Chen AH, Goh PP. A comparison of autorefraction and subjective refraction with and without cycloplegia in primary school children. Am J Ophthalmol 2006; 142(1): 68-74 [DOI:10.1016/j.ajo.2006.01.084] [PMID]
14. Liang CL, Hung KS, Park N, Juo SH. Comparison of measurements of refractive errors between the hand-held Retinomax and on-table autorefractors in cyclopleged and noncyclopleged children. J Ophthalmol 2003; 136(6): 1120-8. [DOI:10.1016/S0002-9394(03)00789-X]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
