These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Variability in Objective Refraction for Persons with Down Syndrome.
    Author: Marsack JD, Ravikumar A, Benoit JS, Anderson HA.
    Journal: Optom Vis Sci; 2017 May; 94(5):574-581. PubMed ID: 28288016.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: Down syndrome (DS) is associated with ocular and cognitive sequelae, which both have the potential to influence clinical measures of refractive error. This study compares variability of autorefraction among subjects with and without DS. METHODS: Grand Seiko autorefraction was performed on 139 subjects with DS (age: 8-55, mean: 25 ± 9 yrs) and 138 controls (age: 7-59, mean: 25 ± 10 yrs). Subjects with three refraction measures per eye (DS: 113, control: 136) were included for analysis. Each refraction was converted to power vector notation (M, J0, J45) and a difference in each component (ΔM, ΔJ0, ΔJ45) was calculated for each refraction pairing. From these quantities, average dioptric strength ((Equation is included in full-text article.): square root of the sum of the squares of M, J0, and J45) and average dioptric difference ((Equation is included in full-text article.): square root of the sum of the squares of ΔM, ΔJ0, and ΔJ45) were calculated. RESULTS: The DS group exhibited a greater median (Equation is included in full-text article.)(1Q: 1.38D M: 2.38D 3Q: 3.41D) than control eyes (1Q: 0.47D M: 0.96D 3Q: 2.75D) (P < .001). Likewise, the DS group exhibited a greater median (Equation is included in full-text article.)in refraction (1Q: 0.27D M: 0.42D 3Q: 0.78D) than control eyes (1Q: 0.11D M: 0.15D 3Q: 0.23D) (P < .001) with 97.1% of control eyes exhibiting (Equation is included in full-text article.)≤0.50D, compared to 59.3% of DS eyes. An effect of (Equation is included in full-text article.)on (Equation is included in full-text article.)was not detected (P = .3009) nor was a significant interaction between (Equation is included in full-text article.)and group detected (P = .49). CONCLUSIONS: In the current study, comparing three autorefraction readings, median total dioptric difference with autorefraction in DS was 2.8 times the levels observed in controls, indicating greater potential uncertainty in objective measures of refraction for this population. The analysis demonstrates that J45 is highly contributory to the observed variability.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]