Do all children need a cycloplegic refraction? A comparison of Mohindra's versus cycloplegic refraction

Abstract

Purpose: In 1–12 years old children, we assessed correlation, regression, and agreement between spherical equivalents (SE) obtained on Mohindra's near retinoscopy (MNR) and the post cycloplegic refraction (PCRef), performed 72 h after a cycloplegic refraction (CRef) using cyclopentolate 1% drops. Methods: In this prospective comparative study, Mohindra's near retinoscopy (MNR) was performed on 202 eyes of 101 children, from 50 cm with a streak retinoscope, in a dimly lit room, subtracting 1.25 from the trial lens used for neutralization, to obtain the final refraction. Subsequently we undertook CRef, half-hour after instilling 1% cyclopentolate, with a PCRef 72 h later. All refractive data were converted to SE for evaluation. We compared the SEs using correlation, linear regression, and agreement (Bland–Altman graphic analysis) and paired t-test. Significance was set at P ≤ 0.05. Results: The mean SE on MNR was 1.71 ± 2.49 D compared to 1.43 ± 2.42 D on PCRef. A significant correlation with r = 0.97 (r2= 0.94, P < 0.001) existed. Agreement analysis suggested that MNR overestimates hypermetropia and underestimates myopia each by 0.3 D than the standard procedure of CRef-PCRef. The regression analysis suggested that SE on PCRef is 95% of that on MNR, less 0.20. Conclusion: Our study suggests that MNR offers single point refraction very similar to CRef-PCRef, and may be considered as a viable option more often.

Keywords

• cycloplegic refraction
• mohindra's near retinoscopy
• post cycloplegic refraction