Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 17, 2025
Comparison of Three Clinical Stereoscopic Methods for Measuring Binocular Visual Function During Amblyopic Treatment in Unilateral Amblyopia
Published on: September 27, 2024
Comparisons of objective and subjective refraction with and without cycloplegia using binocular wavefront optometer
Yadi Lei1,2,3, Xun Chen1,2,3, Mingrui Cheng1,2,3
1Fudan University Eye Ear Nose and Throat Hospital, Shanghai, China.
Purpose:
To compare school-age children's objective and subjective refraction using a binocular wavefront optometer (BWFOM) with autorefraction and retinoscopy before and after cycloplegia.
Methods:
Eighty-six eyes from 86 children (6-15 years old) were enrolled in this cross-sectional study. BWFOM objective and subjective refractions were compared with autorefraction and retinoscopy under cycloplegia. BWFOM refraction was evaluated before and after cycloplegia. Measurements were compared using a paired t-test; agreement was assessed using Bland-Altman plots.
Results:
Under cycloplegia, the sphere, spherical equivalence, and J45 were significantly more negative on BWFOM objective refraction than autorefraction (- 1.39 ± 2.20 D vs. - 1.28 ± 2.23 D, P = 0.003; - 1.84 ± 2.38 D vs. - 1.72 ± 2.43 D, P = 0.001; - 0.02 ± 0.17 D vs. 0.03 ± 0.21 D, P = 0.004). The subjective sphere of BWFOM was less myopic, and the cylinder and the J45 were more negative than those with retinoscopy (- 1.17 ± 2.09 D vs. - 1.25 ± 2.20 D, P = 0.02; - 0.91 ± 0.92 D vs. - 0.76 ± 0.92 D, P < 0.001; - 0.01 ± 0.15 D vs. 0.03 ± 0.21 D, P = 0.028). For both BWFOM objective and subjective refraction, sphere and spherical equivalence with noncycloplegia were more myopic than those with cycloplegia (objective: - 1.76 ± 2.10 D vs. - 1.39 ± 2.20 D, - 2.21 ± 2.30 D vs. - 1.84 ± 2.38 D, P < 0.001; subjective: - 1.57 ± 1.92 D vs. - 1.17 ± 2.09 D, - 2.01 ± 2.13 D vs. - 1.62 ± 2.27 D, P < 0.001). Bland-Altman plots showed good agreement in spherical equivalence between BWFOM objective refraction and autorefraction (mean difference = 0.12 D, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.52 to 0.76), subjective refraction with retinoscopy (mean difference = - 0.01 D, 95% CI - 0.65 to 0.64), and BWFOM refractions with or without cycloplegia (objective: mean difference = - 0.37 D, 95% CI - 1.31 to 0.57; subjective: mean difference = - 0.39 D, 95% CI - 1.30 to 0.51). The time cost by BWFOM was significantly less than the total time of autorefraction and retinoscopy (264.88 ± 90.67 s vs. 315.89 ± 95.31 s, P < 0.001).
Conclusion:
BWFOM is a new device that realizes both objective and subjective refraction. For children's refractive errors, it is more convenient and quicker to obtain the proper prescription at a 0.05-D interval, and it is more accurate than autorefraction and retinoscopy under cycloplegia.
