Efficacy evaluation of three objective refraction methods under cycloplegia in examination of refractive status among preschool children
10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2026222
- VernacularTitle:学龄前儿童3种客观验光应用于屈光状态检查效果评价
- Author:
SU Yu , XU Xiaohai, TANG Kaiyu, LI Zhongfu, FENG Mian, XU Shaojun
1
Author Information
1. Department of Ophthalmology, Anhui Women and Childrens Medical Center(Hefei Maternal and Child Health Hospital), Hefei 230001, Anhui Province, China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Refraction,ocular;
Vision tests;
Reference standards;
Child,preschool
- From:
Chinese Journal of School Health
2026;47(7):1011-1014
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To explore the differences and consistency among three objective refraction methods, namely, retinoscopy after cycloplegia, the Spot binocular vision screener, and automated computer refractometry in preschool children, so as to provide evidence for optimizing refractive assessment strategies in this population.
Methods:A total of 116 preschool children aged 2-6 years who were referred to the Ophthalmology Department of Anhui Women and Children s Medical Center because of abnormal vision screening results between August 2025 and March 2026 were enrolled by using purposive sampling. After adequate cycloplegia was achieved with 1% atropine ophthalmic gel, objective refraction was performed by using cycloplegic retinoscopy, the Spot Vision Screener, and an autorefractor. Differences in spherical equivalent (SE) among the three methods were compared using the Friedman test, while differences in myopia detection rates were assessed using Cochran s Q test. Cycloplegic retinoscopy was used as the reference standard to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and reliability of the Spot Vision Screener and the autorefractor for myopia detection.
Results:The median (interquartile range) spherical equivalent (SE) values for the right eye were identical across the three methods:1.50 (0.75, 2.50) D for cycloplegic retinoscopy, the Spot Vision Screener, and the autorefractor. For the left eye, the corresponding values were 1.50 (0.50, 2.50), 1.50 (0.50, 2.50), and 1.63 (0.75, 2.50) D, respectively. There were no significant differences in SE measurements among the three methods for either eye ( χ 2=3.77, 3.28, both P >0.05). The myopia detection rates of cycloplegic retinoscopy, the Spot Vision Screener, and the autorefractor were 13.79%, 12.07%, and 13.79%, respectively, for the right eye, and 13.79%, 14.66%, and 12.93%, respectively, for the left eye, with no significant differences among the three methods (Cochran s Q =1.60, 1.14, both P >0.05). Using cycloplegic retinoscopy as the reference standard, both the Spot Vision Screener and the autorefractor demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy and reliability for detecting myopia. Compared with the Spot Vision Screener, the autorefractor showed higher sensitivity (right eye:93.75%, 81.25%; left eye:88.24%, 76.47% ), Youden index (right eye:0.93, 0.80; left eye:0.86, 0.74), overall agreement (right eye:98.28%, 96.55%; left eye:96.55%, 94.83%), and Cohen s Kappa coefficient (right eye:0.93, 0.85; left eye:0.86, 0.78).
Conclusion:Under standardized cycloplegic conditions, the Spot Vision Screener and the autorefractor can serve as alternatives to retinoscopy for assessing refractive status, particularly in large scale screening and in children with poor cooperation.
