Cargando…

Tribal Odisha Eye Disease Study # 4: Accuracy and utility of photorefraction for refractive error correction in tribal Odisha (India) school screening

PURPOSE: To compare the photorefraction system (Welch Allyn Spot™) performance with subjective refraction in school sight program in one Odisha (India) tribal district. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study school students, aged 5–15 years, referred after the preliminary screening by trained school te...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Reddy, Sandeep, Panda, Lapam, Kumar, Anjul, Nayak, Suryasmita, Das, Taraprasad
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6032762/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29941733
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_74_18
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: To compare the photorefraction system (Welch Allyn Spot™) performance with subjective refraction in school sight program in one Odisha (India) tribal district. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study school students, aged 5–15 years, referred after the preliminary screening by trained school teachers received photoscreening and subjective correction. The photoscreener was compared to subjective refraction in the range of +2D to −7.5D. Statistical analysis included Friedman nonparametric test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, linear regression, and Bland–Altman plotting. RESULTS: The photoscreener was used in 5990 children. This analysis included 443 children (187 males, 256 females, and the mean age was 12.43 ± 2.5 years) who received both photorefraction and subjective correction, and vision improved to 6/6 in either eye. The median spherical equivalent (SE) with spot photorefraction was 0.00 D (minimum −5.0D; maximum +1.6 D), and with subjective correction was 0.00D (minimum −6.00 D; maximum +1.5 D). The difference in the SE between the two methods was statistically significant (P < 0.001) using Friedman nonparametric test; it was not significant for J 45 and J 180 (P = 0.39 and P = 0.17, respectively). There was a good correlation in linear regression analysis (R(2) = 0.84) and Bland–Altman showed a good agreement between photorefraction and subjective correction in the tested range. CONCLUSION: Photorefraction may be recommended for autorefraction in school screening with reasonable accuracy if verified with a satisfactory subjective correction. The added advantages include its speed, need of less expensive eye care personnel, ability to refract both eyes together, and examination possibility in the native surrounding.