Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 3550
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 66  |  Issue : 7  |  Page : 929-933

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


1 Srimati Kanuri Shantamma Centre for Vitreoretianl Diseases, L V Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
2 Indian Oil Centre for Rural Eye Health, LV Prasad Eye Institute, Bhubaneswar; NMB Eye Centre and JK Center for Tribal Eye Disease, L V Prasad Eye Institute, Rayagada, Odisha, India
3 NMB Eye Centre and JK Center for Tribal Eye Disease, L V Prasad Eye Institute, Rayagada, Odisha, India
4 Srimati Kanuri Shantamma Centre for Vitreoretianl Diseases, L V Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, Telangana; Indian Oil Centre for Rural Eye Health, LV Prasad Eye Institute, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India

Correspondence Address:
Taraprasad Das
L V Prasad Eye Institute, Road # 2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034, Telangana
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_74_18

Rights and Permissions

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 (R2 = 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.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1111    
    Printed7    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded191    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal