Comparison Objective Refraction Results of Autorefractor and Non-Cyclopegic Retinoscope with Subjective at SDN 17 Kebon Jeruk

Refractive errors are the leading cause of visual impairment among school-aged children. Early detection is essential, particularly in children who have difficulty providing subjective responses. Objective refraction instruments, such as autorefractors and non-cycloplegic retinoscopes, can be used as alternatives. This study aimed to compare the objective refraction results obtained using an autorefractor and a non-cycloplegic retinoscope, and to determine which instrument provides results most closely aligned with subjective refraction. This cross-sectional study involved 196 students aged 7 to 12 years from SDN 17 Kebon Jeruk. Each participant underwent refractive examinations using all three methods. The spherical equivalent (SE) results were compared within a tolerance of ±0.25 diopters (D) and analyzed using the McNemar test. The findings showed that the non-cycloplegic retinoscope produced results significantly closer to subjective refraction (p < 0.001), with agreement rates of 83.7% in the right eye and 87.2% in the left eye. In comparison, the autorefractor showed agreement rates of 55.6% and 62.8%, respectively. The SE differences with the retinoscope were also smaller and more consistent. In conclusion, the non-cycloplegic retinoscope provides refractive values that are more comparable to subjective results than the autorefractor, making it a more recommended instrument for refractive screening in elementary school children.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Jurnal MedScientiae
Published
2025-08-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.36452/jmedscientiae.v4i2.3841
Primary Topic
Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparison Objective Refraction Results of Autorefractor and Non-Cyclopegic Retinoscope with Subjective at SDN 17 Kebon Jeruk

Desi Hartati Silaen, Kristian Goenawan, Dwi Warti
1 links
Jurnal MedScientiae
Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
article

Comparison Objective Refraction Results of Autorefractor and Non-Cyclopegic Retinoscope with Subjective at SDN 17 Kebon Jeruk

Desi Hartati Silaen, Kristian Goenawan, Dwi Warti
article en

Abstract

Refractive errors are the leading cause of visual impairment among school-aged children. Early detection is essential, particularly in children who have difficulty providing subjective responses. Objective refraction instruments, such as autorefractors and non-cycloplegic retinoscopes, can be used as alternatives. This study aimed to compare the objective refraction results obtained using an autorefractor and a non-cycloplegic retinoscope, and to determine which instrument provides results most closely aligned with subjective refraction. This cross-sectional study involved 196 students aged 7 to 12 years from SDN 17 Kebon Jeruk. Each participant underwent refractive examinations using all three methods. The spherical equivalent (SE) results were compared within a tolerance of ±0.25 diopters (D) and analyzed using the McNemar test. The findings showed that the non-cycloplegic retinoscope produced results significantly closer to subjective refraction (p < 0.001), with agreement rates of 83.7% in the right eye and 87.2% in the left eye. In comparison, the autorefractor showed agreement rates of 55.6% and 62.8%, respectively. The SE differences with the retinoscope were also smaller and more consistent. In conclusion, the non-cycloplegic retinoscope provides refractive values that are more comparable to subjective results than the autorefractor, making it a more recommended instrument for refractive screening in elementary school children.

Jurnal MedScientiaeVol. 4(2)
Krida Wacana Christian University (ID)
Openalex Percentile: Top 69%
Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.