Evaluation of Refraction Outcomes From the QuickSee Wavefront Autorefractor Versus Subjective Clinical Refractometry in Children With Restricted Access to Eye Care in Amazonas, Brazil.

Background This study compared the refraction measurements of the QuickSee wavefront autorefractor with those from clinical refraction measurements in preschool and elementary school children from public schools in Amazonas, Brazil. Methodology Refractometry was performed on 368 eyes from 368 healthy Brazilian public school students aged 4 to 7 years using both the QuickSee and subjective clinical methods under cycloplegia. Only right-eye data were analyzed. The results were converted into spherical equivalents and vector magnitudes for comparison. Results The difference in spherical equivalents between QuickSee and subjective clinical refractometry under cycloplegia was +0.38 ± 0.60 Diopters (D) (p < 0.0001). Along the 90° axis, the vector difference was +0.20 ± 0.33 D (p < 0.0001), and the oblique vector difference was +0.03 ± 0.22 D (p = 0.0395). Conclusions While a statistically significant difference was found between the QuickSee and subjective clinical refractometry results, the difference was not clinically meaningful. The strong agreement between these methods supports the utility of QuickSee as an effective tool for refractive assessment in children with limited access to eye care. These findings provide confidence in using QuickSee in public school settings as a reliable alternative for vision screening.
Competing Interests: Human subjects: Consent was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. UFAM – Hospital Universitário Getúlio Vargas issued approval 75560623.0.0000.9167. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
(Copyright © 2024, Chaves Filho et al.)