Volume : 3
Issue : 2
Online ISSN : 2395-1451
Print ISSN : 2395-1443
Article First Page : 202
Article End Page : 206
Purpose: Comparative studies of noncycloplegic automated refraction, cycloplegic automated refraction and cycloplegic refraction among youngsters are scanty. This study aimed to compare noncycloplegic AR, cycloplegic AR and cycloplegic refraction among patients between the age group of 5-25 years. It is a descriptive cross sectional study.
Methods: Patients between 5 and 25 years with a visual acuity better than +0.3 logmar unit were included in this study. Noncycloplegic AR, cycloplegic AR and cycloplegic refraction were done for each patient. These results were compared.
Results: The study group included 63 patients between the age group 5-25 years. 55.6% (n=35) were females. The mean age of the group was 12.62 years with SD of ± 4.28 years. The mean difference between cycloplegic and noncycloplegic AR was 1.09 D (SD ± 1.1), the mean value of difference between cycloplegic refraction and noncycloplegic AR was 1.11 D (SD ±1.26) and the mean difference between cycloplegic refraction and cycloplegic AR was 0.50 D (SD ±0.52).
Conclusion: AR can be considered as a screening tool for refractive errors in youngsters but cycloplegic refraction is the gold standard for accurate measurement of the refractive status. Difference between pre and post cycloplegic AR is helpful in measuring accommodation of an individual.
Keywords: Automated refractometer, Accomodation, Cycloplegic AR, Cycloplegic refraction, Noncycloplegic AR