Cycloplegic autorefraction versus cycloplegic retinoscopy
Reviewed by Fiona Rowe

This cross-sectional study compared cycloplegic autorefraction using VISUREF 100 table top and keratometer device (Zeiss) versus cycloplegic retinoscopy. The study included 47 children (94 eyes) of which 55 eyes were excluded because of ocular disease or not aged three to 10 years or with insufficient data. Complete data was reported for 34 eyes of 18 patients. Mean age was 6.17 years and eight were female. Mean sphere was 0.639D on autorefraction and 0.595D for retinoscopy; non-significant differences overall. Five eyes had clinically significant differences. Mean cylinder power was -1.551D on autorefraction and -1.470D for retinoscopy: non-significant overall. Four eyes had clinically significant differences. Mean spherical equivalent was -0.136D for autorefraction and -90.140D for retinoscopy: non-significant overall. One eye had clinically significant differences. Mean axis was 92.411 degrees for autorefraction and 89.235 degrees for retinoscopy: non-significant overall. The results indicate cycloplegic autorefraction produced similar results to cycloplegic retinoscopy. The authors suggest this is viable, particularly where access to paediatric ophthalmologists is difficult. They recommend a larger study to prove equivalence.

Cycloplegic autorefraction as a substitute for cycloplegic retinoscopy in the pediatric population.
Schott B, Seery C, Wagner RS, Guo S.
JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC OPHTHALMOLOGY AND STRABISMUS
2022;59(6):422-7.