Aims: The study aims to compare spherical equivalents (SEs) of refractive errors in young adults using near retinoscopy (NR), dry retinoscopy (DR), and cycloplegic retinoscopy and to assess the agreement and bias among these techniques. Methodology: A prospective, cross-sectional study was conducted on 52 university students aged 18–26 years. Each participant underwent a comprehensive eye examination followed by DR, NR, and wet retinoscopy (WR), all performed by the same examiner, who was blinded to previous results. SE values were analyzed for the right eye, as no significant difference was found between eyes. Statistical Analysis: The Friedman test was used to evaluate differences in SE among the three techniques, followed by pairwise comparison using the Wilcoxon signed–rank test, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of P < 0.017. The clinical agreement was analyzed using Bland–Altman plots. Results: Data from 104 eyes (n = 52) showed that, as compared to NR and DR, WR revealed most hyperopic readings. The Friedman test showed a statistically significant difference between the techniques (df = 2, P < 0.001). Post hoc analysis revealed a significant difference between WR and DR, while NR did not differ significantly from either. Bland–Altman analysis indicated a mild bias and a wide range of agreement limits. Conclusion: NR can be considered clinically acceptable in young adults in situations where cycloplegia cannot be performed.
Prasad et al. (Wed,) studied this question.