Comparison of photoscreeners and hand-held autorefractometer with cycloplegic autorefractometry in children with newly diagnosed attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authorscopusid56600800000
dc.authorscopusid57188973453
dc.authorscopusid55549628500
dc.authorscopusid57195725917
dc.authorscopusid57221997538
dc.contributor.authorYeter, Duygu Yalınbaş
dc.contributor.authorBozali, Erman
dc.contributor.authorKara, Caner
dc.contributor.authorSarı, Seda Aybüke
dc.contributor.authorDursun, Demet
dc.date.accessioned2024-09-19T15:43:41Z
dc.date.available2024-09-19T15:43:41Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.departmentHatay Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractPurpose: To compare non-cycloplegic refraction measurements of two photoscreeners and the hand-held autorefractometer with cycloplegic measurements of the autorefractometer in patients with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Meterials and methods: This cross-sectional, comparative study consisted of 53 children who were newly diagnosed with ADHD. We compared spherical, cylindrical, cylindrical axis and spherical equivalent (SE) measurements in Plusoptix A12, Spot Vision Screener, and Retinomax K-plus Screen with Tonoref II. Reliability was analyzed by using the interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman plot was used to evaluate the agreement between devices. Results: The mean age of children was 9.45±1.68. All of the devices measured spherical power and SE significantly more myopic than the Tonoref II. While The Spot Vision Screener, PlusoptiX A12, and Tonoref II provided similar cylindrical power, Retinomax K-plus Screen measured significantly lower than the Tonoref II. The excellent reliability was detected in spherical power, cylindrical power, SE and J0 between Tonoref II and PlusoptiX A12 (ICC:0.930, 0.921, 0.927 and 0.920, respectively. All of the hand-held devices showed excellent reliability in terms of cylindrical power and J0 (ICC>0.90, for all) and good reliability for J45 (ICC:0.75-0.90 for all). Conclusion: Despite all devices having advantages or disadvantages, Plusoptix A12 showed excellent reliability for detecting refractive errors in children with ADHD. © 2023, Pamukkale University. All rights reserved.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.31362/patd.1140073
dc.identifier.endpage207en_US
dc.identifier.issn1309-9833
dc.identifier.issue2en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85160685551en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ4en_US
dc.identifier.startpage196en_US
dc.identifier.trdizinid1163656en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.31362/patd.1140073
dc.identifier.urihttps://search.trdizin.gov.tr/tr/yayin/detay/1163656
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12483/14501
dc.identifier.volume16en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakTR-Dizinen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherPamukkale Universityen_US
dc.relation.ispartofPamukkale Medical Journalen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderen_US
dc.subjectautorefractometeren_US
dc.subjectchildrenen_US
dc.subjectcycloplegiaen_US
dc.subjectphotoscreeneren_US
dc.titleComparison of photoscreeners and hand-held autorefractometer with cycloplegic autorefractometry in children with newly diagnosed attention deficit hyperactivity disorderen_US
dc.title.alternativeYeni tanı konmuş dikkat eksikliği hiperaktivite bozukluğu olan çocuklarda fotoscreener ve el tipi otorefraktometrenin sikloplejik otorefraktometri ile karşılaştırılmasıen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Orijinal paket
Listeleniyor 1 - 1 / 1
Küçük Resim
İsim:
Tam Metin / Full Text
Boyut:
1.72 MB
Biçim:
Adobe Portable Document Format
İndir

Koleksiyon

Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
TR-Dizin İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu