Comparison of photoscreeners and hand-held autorefractometer with cycloplegic autorefractometry in children with newly diagnosed attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Yıl 2023, , 196 - 207, 05.04.2023

Duygu Yalınbaş Yeter , Erman Bozali , Caner Kara , Seda Aybüke Sarı , Demet Dursun

https://doi.org/10.31362/patd.1140073

Öz

Purpose: To compare non-cycloplegic refraction measurements of two photoscreeners and the hand-held autorefractometer with cycloplegic measurements of the autorefractometer in patients with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Meterials and methods: This cross-sectional, comparative study consisted of 53 children who were newly diagnosed with ADHD. We compared spherical, cylindrical, cylindrical axis and spherical equivalent (SE) measurements in Plusoptix A12, Spot Vision Screener, and Retinomax K-plus Screen with Tonoref II. Reliability was analyzed by using the interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman plot was used to evaluate the agreement between devices.
Results: The mean age of children was 9.45±1.68. All of the devices measured spherical power and SE significantly more myopic than the Tonoref II. While The Spot Vision Screener, PlusoptiX A12, and Tonoref II provided similar cylindrical power, Retinomax K-plus Screen measured significantly lower than the Tonoref II. The excellent reliability was detected in spherical power, cylindrical power, SE and J0 between Tonoref II and PlusoptiX A12 (ICC:0,930, 0,921, 0,927 and 0,920, respectively. All of the hand-held devices showed excellent reliability in terms of cylindrical power and J0 (ICC>0.90, for all) and good reliability for J45 (ICC:0.75-0.90 for all).
Conclusion: Despite all devices having advantages or disadvantages, Plusoptix A12 showed excellent reliability for detecting refractive errors in children with ADHD.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, photoscreener, autorefractometer, children, cycloplegia

Yeni tanı konmuş dikkat eksikliği hiperaktivite bozukluğu olan çocuklarda fotoscreener ve el tipi otorefraktometrenin sikloplejik otorefraktometri ile karşılaştırılması

Öz

Amaç: Dikkat eksikliği hiperaktivite bozukluğu (DEHB) olan hastalarda iki fotoscreener ve el otorefraktometresinin sikloplejik olmayan refraksiyon ölçümlerini sikloplejik otorefraktometre ölçümleriyle karşılaştırmak.
Gereç ve yöntem: Bu kesitsel, karşılaştırmalı çalışmaya yeni DEHB tanısı konan 53 çocuk dahil edildi. Tonoref II ile Plusoptix A12, Spot Vision Screener ve Retinomax K-plus Screen cihazlarında sferik, silindirik, silindirik eksen ve sferik eşdeğer (SE) ölçümlerini karşılaştırdık. Güvenilirlik, sınıflar arası korelasyon katsayısı (SKK) kullanılarak analiz edildi ve cihazlar arasındaki uyumu değerlendirmek için Bland-Altman grafiği kullanıldı.
Bulgular: Çocukların yaş ortalaması 9,45±1,68 idi. Tüm cihazlar sferik gücü ve SE’yi Tonoref II'den önemli ölçüde daha miyop ölçtü. Spot Vision Screener, PlusoptiX A12 ve Tonoref II benzer silindirik güç tespit ederken, Retinomax K-plus Screen, Tonoref II'den önemli ölçüde daha düşük silindirik güç ölçtü. Tonoref II ve PlusoptiX A12 (sırasıyla SKK:0.930, 0.921, 0.927 ve 0.920) arasında sferik güç, silindirik güç, SE ve J0'da mükemmel güvenilirlik tespit edildi. Elde taşınan cihazların tümü, silindirik güç ve J0 (tümü için SKK>0,90) ve J45 için iyi güvenilirlik (tümü için SKK:0,75-0,90) açısından mükemmel güvenilirlik gösterdi.
Sonuç: Plusoptix A12, tüm cihazların avantaj ve dezavantajlarına rağmen DEHB'li çocuklarda kırma kusurlarını saptamada mükemmel güvenilirlik göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Dikkat eksikliği hiperaktivite bozukluğu, fotoscreener, otorefraktometre, çocuklar, siklopleji

Kaynakça

• Referans 1. Karaca I, Biler ED, Onay MP, Özbaran B, Üretmen Ö. Stereoacuity, fusional vergence amplitudes, and refractive errors prior to treatment in patients with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Turk J Ophthalmol. 2020;50:15. https://doi.org/10.4274/tjo.galenos.2019.17802
• Referans 2. Larrañaga Fragoso P, Noval S, Rivero JC, Boto de los Bueis A. The effects of methylphenidate on refraction and anterior segment parameters in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus. 2015;19:322-326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaapos.2015.04.005
• Referans 3. Ho JD, Sheu JJ, Kao YW, Shia BC, Lin HC. Associations between attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and ocular abnormalities in children: A population-based study. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2020;27:194-199. https://doi.org/10.1080/09286586.2019.1704795
• Referans 4. Ababneh LT, Bashtawi M, Ababneh BF, Mahmoud IH, Rashdan M, Zahran M. Ocular findings in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: A case–control study. Ann Med and Surg. 2020;57:303-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2020.08.005
• Referans 5. Mezer E, Wygnanski-Jaffe T. Do children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder have ocular abnormalities? Eur J Ophthalmol. 2012;22:931-935. https://doi.org/10.5301/ejo.5000145
• Referans 6. Marzolf AL, Peterseim MM, Forcina BD, et al. Use of the spot vision screener for patients with developmental disability. J AAPOS. 2017;21:313-315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaapos.2017.04.008
• Referans 7. Teberik K, Eski MT, Kaya M, Ankarali H. A comparison of three different photoscreeners in children. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2018;55:306-311. https://doi.org/10.3928/01913913-20180405-03
• Referans 8. Yilmaz I, Ozkaya A, Alkin Z, Ozbengi S, Yazici AT, Demirok A. Comparison of the plusoptix a09 and retinomax k-plus 3 with retinoscopy in children. J Pediatric Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2015;52:37-42. https://doi.org/10.3928/01913913-20141230-06
• Referans 9. Prabakaran S, Dirani M, Chia A, et al. Cycloplegic refraction in preschool children: Comparisons between the hand‐held autorefractor, table‐mounted autorefractor and retinoscopy. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2009;29:422-426. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2008.00616.x
• Referans 10. Choong YF, Chen AH, Goh PP. A comparison of autorefraction and subjective refraction with and without cycloplegia in primary school children. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006;142:68-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2006.01.084
• Referans 11. Donahue SP, Arthur B, Neely DE, et al. Guidelines for automated preschool vision screening: A 10-year, evidence-based update. J AAPOS. 2013;17:4-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaapos.2012.09.012
• Referans 12. Akil H, Keskin S, Çavdarli C. Comparison of the refractive measurements with hand-held autorefractometer, table-mounted autorefractometer and cycloplegic retinoscopy in children. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2015;29:178-184. https://doi.org/10.3341/kjo.2015.29.3.178
• Referans 13. Thibos LN, Wheeler W, Horner D. Power vectors: An application of fourier analysis to the description and statistical analysis of refractive error. Optom Vis Sci. 1997;74:367-375. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-199706000-00019
• Referans 14. Grönlund M, Aring E, Landgren M, Hellström A. Visual function and ocular features in children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, with and without treatment with stimulants. Eye. 2007;21:494-502. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.eye.6702240
• Referans 15. Birch EE, Kelly KR. Pediatric ophthalmology and childhood reading difficulties: Amblyopia and slow reading. J AAPOS. 2017; 21:442-447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaapos.2017.06.013
• Referans 16. Collins ME, Mudie LI, Inns AJ, Repka MX. Pediatric ophthalmology and childhood reading difficulties: Overview of reading development and assessments for the pediatric ophthalmologist. J AAPOS. 2017;21:433-436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaapos.2017.06.017
• Referans 17. Bilbao C, Piñero DP. Diagnosis of oculomotor anomalies in children with learning disorders. Clin Exp Optom. 2020;103:597-609. https://doi.org/10.1111/cxo.13024
• Referans 18. Su CC, Tsai CY, Tsai TH, Tsai IJ. Incidence and risk of attention‐deficit hyperactivity disorder in children with amblyopia: A nationwide cohort study. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2019;47:259-264. https://doi.org/10.1111/ceo.13465
• Referans 19. Fogel Levin M, Doron R, Wygnanski Jaffe T, Ancri O, Zion IB. A comparison of plusoptix a12 measurements with cycloplegic refraction. J AAPOS. 2016;20:310-314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaapos.2016.04.006
• Referans 20. Ugurbas SC, Alpay A, Efe YK, Ugurbas SH, Tutar H, Sagdik HM. Validity of plusoptix s04 photoscreener as a vision screening tool in children with intellectual disability. J AAPOS. 2011;15:e14-e15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaapos.2011.01.055
• Referans 21. McCurry TC, Lawrence LM, Wilson ME, Mayo L. The plusoptix s08 photoscreener as a vision screening tool for children with autism. J AAPOS. 2013;17:374-377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaapos.2013.05.006
• Referans 22. Saini V, Raina UK, Gupta A, et al. Comparison of plusoptix s12r photoscreener with cycloplegic retinoscopy and autorefraction in pediatric age group. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2019;67:1555. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_1465_18
• Referans 23. Mirzajani A, Qasemi F, Asharlous A, et al. Are the results of handheld auto-refractometer as valid as the result of table-mounted refractometer? J Curr Ophthalmol. 2019;31:305-311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joco.2018.10.012
• Referans 24. Tuncer I, Zengin MO, Karahan E. Comparison of the retinomax hand-held autorefractor versus table-top autorefractor and retinoscopy. Int J Ophthalmol. 2014;7:491. https://doi.org/10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2014.03.19
• Referans 25. Cordonnier M, Kallay O. Non-cycloplegic screening for refractive errors in children with the hand-held autorefractor retinomax: Final results and comparison with non-cycloplegic photoscreening. Strabismus. 2001;9:59-70. https://doi.org/10.1076/stra.9.2.59.701
• Referans 26. Barugel R, Touhami S, Samama S, et al. Evaluation of the spot vision screener for children with limited access to ocular health care. J AAPOS. 2019;23:153. e151-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaapos.2018.09.012
• Referans 27. Qian X, Li Y, Ding G, et al. Compared performance of spot and sw800 photoscreeners on chinese children. Br J Ophthalmol. 2019;103:517-522. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2018-311885
• Referans 28. Yassa ET, Ünlü C. Comparison of autorefraction and photorefraction with and without cycloplegia using 1% tropicamide in preschool children. J Ophthalmol. 2019;2019:1487013. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/1487013
• Referans 29. Demirci G, Arslan B, Özsütçü M, Eliaçık M, Gulkilik G. Comparison of photorefraction, autorefractometry and retinoscopy in children. Int Ophthalmol. 2014;34:739-746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-013-9864-x