YYÜ GCRIS Basic veritabanının içerik oluşturulması ve kurulumu Research Ecosystems (https://www.researchecosystems.com) tarafından devam etmektedir. Bu süreçte gördüğünüz verilerde eksikler olabilir.
 

Results of Different Refractive Error Measurement Methods

dc.authorscopusid 12800128100
dc.authorscopusid 47161059100
dc.authorscopusid 44061323600
dc.authorscopusid 13005120600
dc.contributor.author Ceyhan, Dogan
dc.contributor.author Bozca, Tarik
dc.contributor.author Konca, Reyhan
dc.contributor.author Keskin, Siddik
dc.date.accessioned 2025-05-10T17:26:31Z
dc.date.available 2025-05-10T17:26:31Z
dc.date.issued 2011
dc.department T.C. Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi en_US
dc.department-temp [Ceyhan, Dogan; Bozca, Tarik; Konca, Reyhan] Van Asker Hastanesi, Goz Hastalikalri Serv, Van, Turkey; [Keskin, Siddik] Yuzuncu Yil Univ, Tip Fak, Biyoistatistik Bolumu, Van, Turkey en_US
dc.description.abstract Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the reliability of different methods of objective refractive error measurement. Material and Method: Cycloplegic refractive errors of sixty-seven eyes of thirty-six male patients were measured. Subjects were chosen between the patients who had refractive errors more than 2.00 diopters of myopia, hyperopia or astigmatism. Spherical and cylindrical errors as well as spherical equivalents were measured with two different autorefractors and a retinoscope. Repeated measures analysis of variance and Tukey's multiple comparison test were used for the statistical analysis of refractive error measurements. Results: The mean and standard deviation values of spherical refractive error were 6.94+/-3.43 with retinoscopy, 7.21+/-3.29 for autorefractor 1, and 7.94+/-3.44 for autorefractor 2. The spherical equivalents were 7.50+/-3.43 for retinoscopy, 7.93+/-3.38 for autorefractor 1, and 8.83+/-3.64 for autorefractor 2. These values show that statistically and clinically significant differences existed between autorefractors 1 and 2 as well as between autorefractor 1 and retinoscope (p< 0.05). Discussion: The results of this study demonstrate that different measurement methods and instruments may yield different values of refractive errors, which may cause wrong decisions about the value of objective refraction. Standardization of measurement methods should be established to obtain valid, accurate and reliable results and, especially for occupational requirements, subjective refraction should gain wider acceptance as " gold standard" method. en_US
dc.description.woscitationindex Emerging Sources Citation Index
dc.identifier.doi 10.4274/tjo.41.17
dc.identifier.endpage 89 en_US
dc.identifier.issn 1300-0659
dc.identifier.issn 2147-2661
dc.identifier.issue 2 en_US
dc.identifier.scopus 2-s2.0-79960668177
dc.identifier.scopusquality N/A
dc.identifier.startpage 84 en_US
dc.identifier.uri https://doi.org/10.4274/tjo.41.17
dc.identifier.uri https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14720/11701
dc.identifier.volume 41 en_US
dc.identifier.wos WOS:000219196900005
dc.identifier.wosquality N/A
dc.language.iso tr en_US
dc.publisher Turkish Ophthalmological Soc en_US
dc.relation.publicationcategory Makale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı en_US
dc.rights info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess en_US
dc.subject Refractive Error en_US
dc.subject Measurement en_US
dc.subject Validity en_US
dc.subject Reliability en_US
dc.subject Accuracy en_US
dc.title Results of Different Refractive Error Measurement Methods en_US
dc.type Article en_US

Files