Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorDikkaya, Funda
dc.contributor.authorKaraman Erdur, Sevil
dc.date.accessioned10.07.201910:49:13
dc.date.accessioned2019-07-10T19:35:29Z
dc.date.available10.07.201910:49:14
dc.date.available2019-07-10T19:35:29Z
dc.date.issued2019en_US
dc.identifier.citationDikkaya, F. ve Karaman Erdur, S. (2019). Comparison of the plus optix S09 and spot vision photorefractor to cycloretinoscopy. International Ophthalmology, 39(8), 1671-1678. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10792-018-1026-8en_US
dc.identifier.issn0165-5701
dc.identifier.issn1573-2630
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12511/803
dc.identifier.urihttps://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10792-018-1026-8
dc.description.abstractPurpose: The purpose of this study was to compare refraction measurements for children with the PlusOptix S09 and Spot Vision with cycloplegic retinoscopy. Methods: One hundred thirty-six eyes of 68 children (26 boys and 42 girls) were evaluated prospectively. The subjects were separated into two groups. Group 1 comprised the subjects age between 5 and 9 years. Group 2 comprised the subjects age between 10 and 18 years. Photorefraction with PlusOptix S09, photorefraction with Spot Vision and cycloplegic retinoscopy were performed in each patient. Spherical equivalents, spherical power, cylindrical power and axis values were compared between three methods. Results: The mean age of the patients was 7.12 ± 1.5 years in group 1 and 12.24 ± 1.8 years in group 2. Spherical equivalent and spherical power measured with PlusOptix S09 were statistically smaller than measured with cycloplegic retinoscopy for group 1 (p = 0.001, p = 0.001) and for group 2 (p = 0.000, p = 0.000). The mean cylindrical power measured with PlusOptix S09 was not statistically different compared to cycloplegic retinoscopy for both groups (p = 0.314, p = 0.05). Spherical equivalents measured with Spot Vision were statistically smaller than measured with cycloplegic retinoscopy for both groups (p = 0.000, p = 0.012). Spherical power measured with Spot Vision was statistically smaller than measured with cycloplegic retinoscopy for group 1 (p = 0.000), but the difference was not statistically significant for group 2 (p = 0.084). The mean cylindrical power measured with Spot Vision was statistically higher than cycloplegic retinoscopy for both groups (p = 0.000, p = 0.012). Conclusions: PlusOptix S09 and Spot Vision devices give acceptable results for screening, but prescription of spectacles should not be made according to PlusOptix S09 or Spot Vision devices alone.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherSpringer Netherlandsen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectAmblyopiaen_US
dc.subjectCycloretinoscopyen_US
dc.subjectPhotorefractionen_US
dc.subjectPlusOptix S09en_US
dc.subjectSpot Visionen_US
dc.titleComparison of the plusOptix S09 and spot vision photorefractor to cycloretinoscopyen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.relation.journalInternational Ophthalmologyen_US
dc.departmentİstanbul Medipol Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Cerrahi Tıp Bilimleri Bölümü, Göz Hastalıkları Ana Bilim Dalıen_US
dc.authorid0000-0003-2312-2521en_US
dc.authorid0000-0001-9829-7268en_US
dc.identifier.volume39en_US
dc.identifier.issue8en_US
dc.identifier.startpage1671en_US
dc.identifier.endpage1678en_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s10792-018-1026-8en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record