Discover the SciOpen Platform and Achieve Your Research Goals with Ease.
Search articles, authors, keywords, DOl and etc.
To quantify the impact of the measurement of non-cycloplegic refraction on estimates of refraction and classification of refractive status in young adults.
This cross-sectional analysis included 825 young adults (mean age 26.6±3.3y; 56.7% female) from the Guangzhou Twin Eye Study. All participants underwent both non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic autorefraction. Error in refraction was defined as the difference between cycloplegic and non-cycloplegic spherical equivalent refraction (SER).
Using a cut-off of -0.50 D for non-cycloplegic refraction to diagnose myopia, the prevalence of myopia was overestimated (90.2% vs 87.0%), resulting in the identification of 3.2% (26/825) pseudo-myopes. After increasing the threshold to -0.75 D, the overall prevalence (87.5%) was approximately equivalent to that with cycloplegic refraction, 9 of the 26 pseudo-myopes would have been re-classified correctly as emmetropes, but 13 genuine myopes would have been re-classified incorrectly as emmetropes. Lack of cycloplegia resulted in a significant myopic shift compared to cycloplegic refraction. Notably, 25.6% of participants exhibited a clinically significant myopia refractive shift of ≥0.50 D, and 5.7% demonstrated a large shift of ≥1.00 D.
At a threshold of -0.75 D, the calculated prevalence of myopia is close to that obtained with cycloplegic refraction. However, threshold adjustment does not solve the mis-classification problem, because while it will eliminate some pseudo-myopes, it will also eliminate some genuine myopes. Our study confirms that non-cycloplegic refraction leads to significant measurement errors in young adults, highlighting the necessity of cycloplegia for accurate epidemiologic assessment of myopia prevalence.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Comments on this article