Table 3 Selected studies comparing of spherical equivalent (SE) refraction between photoscreeners and other techniques in currently published studies
Study | Subjects | Design | Results (SE) |
|---|---|---|---|
Liu et al. 2021 [20] | 194 eyes of 97 children (age 4–14 years) | non-cycloplegic 2WIN vs. cycloplegic retinoscopy | −1.83 ± 1.48 vs. -1.38 ± 1.90 (p < 0.01) |
Yakar et al. 2020 [19] | 300 eyes of 150 patients (age 3–10 years) | non-cycloplegic Spot vs. cycloplegic ARK-1 refraction | +0.25 D vs. +1.12 |
Jesus et al. 2016 [12] | right eyes of 134 healthy participants (7–50 years) | cycloplegic Spot vs. subjective cycloplegic clinical refractometry | +0.66 ± 0.56 (p < 0.001) |
Won et al. 2016 [10] | 77 eyes of 40 children (2–10 years) | non-cycloplegic Plusoptix S09 vs. non-cycloplegic autorefractor vs. cycloplegic autorefractor (Canon RK-F1) | 0.61 ± 2.02 vs. -0.54 ± 1.98 vs. 0.73 ± 2.05 (p < 0.001) |
Payerols et al. 2016 [11] | 70 eyes of 35 children (1–8 years) | non-cycloplegic Plusoptix A09 vs. non-cycloplegic vs. cycloplegic autorefraction (Nidek ARK-530A or Retinomax) | +0.54 ± 1.82 vs. -0.70 ± 3.14 (p = 0.04) vs. 1.06 ± 2.04 (p < 0.004) |