Agreement Between Non-Cycloplegic Photorefraction and Retinoscopy in Pediatric Refraction

dc.contributor.authorRoque, Ana
dc.contributor.authorNunes, Amélia Fernandes
dc.contributor.authorNascimento, Henrique
dc.contributor.authorNIAOO Group
dc.contributor.authorMartínez Pérez, Clara
dc.date.accessioned2026-04-20T07:25:08Z
dc.date.available2026-04-20T07:25:08Z
dc.date.issued2026-04-16
dc.description.abstractAccurate assessment of refractive error in children is essential for clinical decision-making, yet agreement between non-cycloplegic techniques remains uncertain, particularly due to differences in accommodative demand. This study evaluated the agreement between static retinoscopy and handheld photorefraction for measuring spherical power, cylindrical power, and spherical equivalent in children aged 4–16 years and assessed whether agreement varied by refractive status. In this cross-sectional observational study, 193 children underwent objective refraction during a single visit using non-cycloplegic static retinoscopy (distance fixation) and handheld infrared photorefraction (~1 m fixation). Inter-method differences were analyzed using Bland–Altman plots, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), mean absolute error (MAE), and non-parametric tests. Photorefraction showed a statistically significant myopic shift compared with retinoscopy for spherical power (−0.16 D), cylindrical power (−0.24 D), and spherical equivalent (−0.28 D). Agreement was moderate in statistical terms for spherical equivalent (ICC = 0.73) and spherical power (0.71), and lower for cylindrical power (0.46); however, wide limits of agreement indicate clinically relevant variability. MAE for spherical equivalent was 0.80 D overall, with 45.1% of measurements within ±0.50 D, and varied by refractive status, being lowest in emmetropic eyes and higher in hyperopic and myopic eyes. These findings indicate that, under non-cycloplegic conditions, photorefraction shows modest mean differences but substantial individual variability, likely influenced by differences in accommodative demand between techniques. While suitable for pediatric vision screening, photorefraction should not be considered interchangeable with retinoscopy for individual refractive assessment.
dc.description.peerreviewedSI
dc.description.sponsorshipThis research received no external funding.
dc.identifier.citationRoque, A., Nunes, A. F., Nascimento, H., Group, N., & Martinez-Perez, C. (2026). Agreement Between Non-Cycloplegic Photorefraction and Retinoscopy in Pediatric Refraction. Life, 16(4), 678. https://doi.org/10.3390/life16040678
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/life16040678
dc.identifier.essn2075-1729
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10347/46794
dc.issue.number4
dc.journal.titleLife
dc.language.isoeng
dc.page.final13
dc.page.initial1
dc.publisherMDPI
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://doi.org/10.3390/life16040678
dc.rights© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 Internationalen
dc.rights.accessRightsopen access
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subjectPediatric optometry
dc.subjectPhotorefraction
dc.subjectRetinoscopy
dc.subjectAccommodation
dc.subjectRefractive error
dc.subjectVision screening
dc.titleAgreement Between Non-Cycloplegic Photorefraction and Retinoscopy in Pediatric Refraction
dc.typejournal article
dc.type.hasVersionVoR
dc.volume.number16
dspace.entity.typePublication

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
2026_life_martinez_agreement.pdf
Size:
592.17 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format

Collections