Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 297823

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2022 | Month : April | Volume : 16 | Issue : 4 | Page : NC05 - NC08 Full Version

Predictive Value of Brückner Test in Detecting Refractive Errors among Children


Published: April 1, 2022 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2022/52334.16287
Neha Nitin Kotwal, Varsha Kulkarni, Tejaswini Khandgave

1. Senior Resident, Department of Ophthalmology, Bharati Hospital, Pune, Maharashtra, India. 2. Professor and Head, Department of Ophthalmology, Bharati Hospital, Pune, Maharashtra, India. 3. Associate Professor, Department of Ophthalmology, Bharati Hospital, Pune, Maharashtra, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Neha Nitin Kotwal,
Senior Resident, Department of Ophthalmology, Bharati Hospital, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
E-mail: nehankotwal@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Uncorrected refractive errors form a major ocular morbidity in children. They often go unnoticed and affect child development. The prevalence of refractive error in Indian children is 10.8%. They are known to affect the overall development of children. However, if the error is high it could lead to amblyopia or strabismus. Snellen’s visual acuity along with cycloplegic refraction is an accepted method to detect refractive errors, but in children, it needs special skill, patience and understanding. The Brückner test is useful for early detection of refractive errors especially in children.

Aim: To re-evaluate the results of Brückner test in the form of sensitivity, specificity and provide data about a simpler, easy, ergonomic technique for mass screening of refractive errors.

Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted at Bharati Hospital (tertiary care hospital), Pune, Maharashtra, India, among 532 children (1064 eyes) in the age group of 2-15 years visiting the Ophthalmology Outpatient Department from October 2018 to September 2020. Position and size of pupillary crescent was recorded among children with direct ophthalmoscope. Children were classified according to errors of refraction as Emmetropia (no crescent), Myopia {inferior crescent (mild (<1/3), moderate (1/3-2/3), high (>2/3)}, Hypermetropia {superior crescent (mild (<1/3), moderate (1/3-2/3), high (>2/3)}. Subsequently, cycloplegic refraction was performed using auto-refractometer. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of the test for emmetropia, myopia and hypermetropia were calculated. Subjective refraction was prescribed to children diagnosed with refractive errors during the course of this study.

Results: Total 275 females and 257 males (mean age 8.3 years) were included in this study, out of which, the study found 354 Emmetropic eyes, 326 Myopic eyes and 384 Hypermetropic eyes. Sensitivity of Brückner for emmetropia was 86.4%, specificity was 95.2%. Whereas for myopia, sensitivity was 95.1% and specificity was 94.6%. Also for hyperopia sensitivity was 95.3% and specificity was 98.8%. The crescent size was found to be significant (p-value<0.001) in diagnosing grades of myopia and hypermetropia as divided.

Conclusion: The Brückner test has good sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value. It is a useful, accurate, and simple screening test.

Keywords

Hypermetropia, Myopia, Screening, Sensitivity, Specificity

Refractive errors are a major cause of preventable blindness in young school-going children. Uncorrected refractive errors form a major cause of ocular morbidity in young children. They are also known to affect the overall development of children inclusive of their social, scholastic and psychological well-being. However, these can often go unnoticed and if the error is high it can lead to amblyopia or strabismus (1). The prevalence of refractive error in India among children, for myopia, hypermetropia and astigmatism is 10.8% (2).

As part of the Indian National Program for Control of Blindness, school vision screening is widely practised at present in the country. The criteria usually used are the visual acuity by Snellen’s chart (3). Children with learning difficulties are also often brought to paediatrician or ophthalmologist for evaluation of an ocular disorder that could be responsible for the disability. Snellen’s visual acuity along with cycloplegic refraction is a widely accepted way to detect refractive errors, but in children, it needs special skill, patience and understanding.

The Brückner test is useful for early detection of refractive errors especially in children. It is an objective test and therefore it can be utilised for testing preverbal and uncooperative children (4),(5). The American Academy of Paediatrics currently recommends red reflex assessment as a component of the eye evaluation in the neonatal period and during all subsequent routine health supervision visits (6).

The screening tests of refraction used in children to identify significant refractive error include cycloplegic auto-refraction which needs automated refractor. It is not usually available at all basic healthcare levels. Other methods of screening include the use of High end photo-screeners which are not in widespread use due to high cost. There are studies which prove that Brückner test is a cost-effective, easy to learn, ergonomic, quick and reliable for screening of refractive errors (4),(5). Kothari MT has reported the Brückner test has sensitivity of 91%, and specificity of 72.8% (5). As there are few studies with variability of data in literature, the present study was conducted to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of this test.

The present study chose a direct ophthalmoscope due to the ease of access. Apart from ophthalmologists, physicians and paediatricians also have access to pocket ophthalmoscopes hence; this can easily be used for screening children without the need for extra equipments. The test can be performed by a non ophthalmologist with equal ease and accuracy as documented by Jain P et al., and Rajalakshmi AR and Rajeshwari M (7),(8). The aim of this study was to re-evaluate the sensitivity, specificity of Brückner test and whether it can be used as an effective screening test for refractive errors.

Material and Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted at Bharati Hospital (tertiary care hospital), Pune, Maharashtra, India, among 532 children (1064 eyes) in the age group of 2-15 years visiting the Ophthalmology Outpatient Department from October 2018 to September 2020. The Institutional Ethical Committee approval according to the tenets of Declaration of Helsinki was obtained.

Inclusion and Exclusion criteria: All children aged between 2-15 years, whose parents or guardians gave consent for the testing were included in the study. Children with ocular media opacities, history of ocular surgeries, and nystagmus were excluded from the study.

After obtaining a written informed consent from the guardian, a demographic datasheet was filled by the examiner. A thorough anterior segment examination with torch light and slit lamp was done for all the children.

Brückner Test

A semi-darkened room was used for examination. After positioning the patient on examination chair, with gaze fixed on a distant object, both eyes were illuminated with a direct ophthalmoscope (Heine Beta 200 Optotechnik, Germany) simultaneously from a distance of around 1 meter. In order to keep the child’s attention enticed, a bright toy was placed on the Snellen’s drum. The reflex was observed in the pupillary area. The presence/absence of pupillary crescent, its location in the pupillary area and the size was noted (5).

Based on the reflex observed, the eyes were classified as Emmetropic, Myopic or Hypermetropic as described in the (Table/Fig 1). After observing the size of pupillary crescent, the refractive errors were classified as per (Table/Fig 1) (5).

The Brückner test was followed by cycloplegic refraction for all children. Cycloplegia was achieved by instilling cyclopentolate 1% eyedrops (Cyclogyl, INTAS Pharma). Two drops of cyclopentolate 1% were administered at 5 min intervals in each eye (9). Refraction was done after 45 minutes by TOPCON KR800, Japan auto-refractometer and wet retinoscopy. The readings of auto-refractometer/retinoscopy were recorded and converted into spherical equivalents. All the readings were recorded in a pre-determined format and the results were compared with that of Brückner test performed earlier. Subjective refraction was carried out later.

Statistical Analysis

The results of this study were coded and entered in MS Excel sheet and the analysis was done by Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software (version 20.0).

Following formulae were used for the calculations (Table/Fig 2):

1) Sensitivity: Probability that a test result will be positive when the disease is present (true positive rate) i.e., a/(a+b)
2) Specificity: Probability that a test result will be negative when the disease is not present (true negative rate) i.e., d/(c+d)
3) Positive predictive value: Probability that the disease is present when the test is positive i.e., a/(a+c)
4) Negative predictive value: Probability that the disease is not present when the test is negative i.e., d/(b+d). Where ‘a’ is true positives, ‘b’ is false negatives, ‘c’ is false positive and ‘d’ is true negative.

The gold standard was cycloplegic-refraction.

The relative height of crescent observed was documented in each eye and its association with the degree of refractive error was studied using Chi-square’s test, the significance was calculated with 95% confidence level and p-value <0.05 was considered as significant.

Results

A total of 532 children (1064 eyes) in the age group of 2-15 years with an average age of 8.3 years, were screened using the Brückner test. It consisted of 257 males and 275 female children.

The range of myopia in the present study was -0.50 to -10.00 D. The highest noted myopia in the study was -10.00 D. Most children (53.9%) belonged to low myopia group as per cycloplegic refraction (n=326). The range of hypermetropia was +0.50 D to +7.75 D highest noted hypermetropia was +7.75 D. Most children (51.56%) were found to be in the low hypermetropia group (n=384).

The comprehensive results of Brückner test and refraction under cycloplegia were compared (Table/Fig 3).

According to Brückner test, out of the total emmetropia eyes, 350 eyes (32.8%) had myopia and 374 eyes (35.2%) had hypermetropia. As per cycloplegic refraction, 326 (30.63%) eyes were myopic and 384 eyes (36.1%) were found to be hypermetropic. The results documented by Brückner test were found to be comparable with that of cycloplegic refraction (p-value <0.001). Brückner test has good sensitivity (95.2%) and specificity (86.44%) for diagnosis of emmetropia. The positive predictive value was found to be 93.37% and negative predictive value is 90% for emmetropia. Sensitivity for hypermetropia diagnosis is 95.3% and specificity is 98.8%. Sensitivity for myopia is found to be 95.1% and specificity is 94.6%. Brückner test has a sensitivity of 86.4% for diagnosing emmetropia and a specificity of 95.2%. A significant association was noted between the size of crescent and the degree of hypermetropia (p-value <0.001) (Table/Fig 4). A significant association was noted between the size of crescent and the degree of myopia (p-value <0.001) (Table/Fig 5).

Discussion

The Brückner test was first described in 1962 in a German paper as a “transillumination test” that could detect small degree of ocular deviations and amblyopia (10). In 1994, Photographic Brückner test was used for screening preverbal and preschool children to facilitate early diagnosis of correctable amblyogenic factors (11). Kothari MT then described the use of this test as a rapid screening modality for refractive errors in Indian children in 2007 (5).

The physics behind this however has not been completely deciphered. As described by Borish the explanation of the location of pupillary crescent can be given by a comparison with photoretinoscopy where light source is below the aperture of the camera like direct ophthalmoscope (12). If the eye is myopic, only the rays from the bottom of the pupil enter the aperture of the ophthalmoscope and it is illuminated on the same side as that of the light source i.e. inferior part. When the eye is hyperopic, only the rays in top half illuminate the upper part in pupillary area.

The present study was conducted to evaluate the Brückner test as a screening method for refractive error. The chosen age of children included in the present study ranged from 2 to 15 years which was comparable with Jalis M et al., and Kothari MT (2007) (4),(5). This study included 257 males (48.3%) and 275 females (51.7%). Almost equal distribution of subjects was noted based on the sex of the patient similar to distributions as in other studies (4),(5).

In the present study, undilated pupillary crescent to perform Brückner test was used. Use of an indirect ophthalmoscope (13) and streak retinoscope (14) was suggested by other studies. A direct ophthalmoscope due to the ease of access was chosen. It did not take longer than 10 seconds per child which was similar to the observation made by Kothari MT (5). A total of 1064 eyes were examined. Brückner test demonstrated 724 eyes (68%) to have ammetropia and 340 eyes (32%) were diagnosed to be emmetropic. Cycloplegic refraction revealed 710 eyes (66.7%) with ammetropia, which is comparable to the results of the Brückner test. Jalis M et al., in their study documented 83.4% ammetropia (4). The number of eyes with myopia and hypermetropia was nearly equal in the current study with a marginally higher hypermetropia (36.1% eyes).

After comparing the results of Brückner test with cycloplegic refraction, the test was found to be highly sensitive (95.2%) and specific (86.44%) for detection of refractive error. According Jalis M et al., the test has a sensitivity of 97% and specificity 79% (4). Kothari MT documented a sensitivity of 91% and 72.8% specificity (5). The Brückner test was also used to calculate refractive error specific sensitivity and specificity after comparing with results of cycloplegic refraction.

Hypermetropia: Brückner test diagnosed Hypermetropia in 374 eyes, out of which, 366 eyes (97.86%) eyes were true positives as confirmed by refraction under cycloplegia. The total of 8 (0.021%) eyes (n=374) diagnosed falsely by us to have hypermetropia were emmetropic. This error of emmetropic eyes being over-diagnosed as hypermetropic might be accounted to observer errors. A total of 18 (1.69%) hypermetropic eyes (n=1064) were missed by the observer and diagnosed as emmetropic. This can be accounted to the natural ciliary tone and accommodation by the child. Also, these errors ranged from +0.25 to +0.75 DS (spherical equivalent). 7Thus, the error margin in terms of diopters was found to be in lower grades of hypermetropia.

Out of the 350 Brückner Myopic eyes, 310 (88.57%) eyes were true myopic eyes. The falsely diagnosed 40 (11.4%) eyes (n=350) were found to be emmetropic on cycoplegic refraction. This can be explained by the possibility of lack of fixation on distant target. The role of accommodation in changing the pupillary crescent has been postulated by Kothari MT as well (5). Thus, it should be considered significant to ensure distance fixation to eliminate the error due to accommodation. The error in myopia diagnosis accounted for 16 (1.5%) eyes only (n=1064). These eyes with myopia were diagnosed as emmetropic on Brückner test. This was again an observer based error in diagnosing and documenting the crescent. However, this accounted for only a small fraction and in lower grades of myopia {-0.25 to -0.75 DS (spherical equivalent)}. There is not enough research documented to analyse the utility of this test in diagnosing individual refractive errors so far.

Authors found that sensitivity for hypermetropia diagnosis is 95.3% and specificity is 98.8%. Also, sensitivity for is myopia is 95.1% and specificity is 94.6%. However, the sensitivity of Brückner test in diagnosing Emmetropia was slightly lower (86.4%) with a specificity of 95.2%. In this study, an endeavour to study the relationship between the size of the pupillary crescent and the degree of refractive error was made. Similar quantification of pupillary crescent was attempted by Jalis M et al., (4). There was a significant association (p-value <0.01) between the crescent size and the grade of myopia or hypermetropia.

Patients with high myopia and high hypermetropia were found to have a dull glow with a very large crescent. Diagnosis of high ammetropia should not be missed and done carefully. Some conditions which could alter the observations during screening include small pupil size, inability of children to fix appropriately at the target, irregular or obliquely placed crescent in astigmatism. These could have been additional reasons for observer based errors. The Brückner test being quick, non invasive, easy to perform and ergonomic in its nature; can be performed at large for mass screening of children for refractive errors. It is also easy to learn even for non ophthalmologists, hence, it could be a potential rapid screening tool for pediatricians or ophthalmic assistants at health camps as well.

Limitation(s)

Firstly, the study was clinic based and not population based, the possibility of bias in selection should therefore be considered. Secondly, due to the subjective nature of results, there is a possibility of inter and intra-observer variations.

Conclusion

The study was conducted to assess Brückner test as a screening modality for refractive errors in children. The results of Brückner test were comparable with that of cycloplegic-refraction. Sensitivity of Brückner test was 95.2% and specificity was 86.44%, positive predictive value of the test was 93.37% and negative predictive value was 90% for emmetropia. The test had good sensitivity and specificity for hypermetropia and myopia. An estimate of degree of refractive error can be made based on the size of the crescent observed. Thus, Brückner test can be used as a screening test for refractive errors in paediatric age group by non ophthalmologists as well.

References

1.
Resnikoff S, Pascolini D, Mariotti SP, Pokharel GP. Global magnitude of visual impairment caused by uncorrected refractive errors in 2004. Bull World Health Organ. 2008;86:63-70. [crossref] [PubMed]
2.
Sheeladevi S, Seelam B, Nukella PB, Modi A, Ali R, Keay L. Prevalence of refractive errors in children in India: A systematic review. Clinical and Experimental Optometry. 2018;101(4):495-503. [crossref] [PubMed]
3.
Jose R, Sachdeva S. School eye screening and the National Program for Control of Blindness. Indian Pediatrics. 2009;46.
4.
Jalis M, Ashfaq MW, Imdad A. Use of Bruckner Test for the detection of significant refractive errors in children. JRMC. 2015;19: 200-03.
5.
Kothari MT. Can the Bruckner test be used as a rapid screening test to detect significant refractive errors in children? Indian Journal of Ophthalmology. 2007;55(3):213. [crossref] [PubMed]
6.
Wallace DK, Morse CL, Melia M, Sprunger DT, Repka MX, Lee KA, et al. American Academy of Ophthalmology Preferred Practice Pattern Pediatric Ophthalmology/Strabismus Panel. Pediatric Eye Evaluations Preferred Practice Pattern: I. Vision Screening in the Primary Care and Community Setting; II. Comprehensive Ophthalmic Examination. Ophthalmology. 2018;125:184-227. [crossref] [PubMed]
7.
Jain P, Kothari MT, Gode V. The opportunistic screening of refractive errors in school-going children by pediatrician using enhanced Brückner test. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology. 2016;64(10):733. [crossref] [PubMed]
8.
Rajalakshmi AR, Rajeshwari M. Efficacy of Brückner’s test for screening of refractive errors by non ophthalmologist versus ophthalmologist: A comparative study. Middle East African Journal of Ophthalmology. 2019;26(4):185. [crossref] [PubMed]
9.
Agarkar S, Khan MS. Refraction in children: What should I prescribe? Scientific Journal of Medical & Vision Research Foundations. 2011;XXIX:33-35.
10.
Tongue AC, Cibis GW. Brückner test. Ophthalmology. 1981;88:1041-44. [crossref]
11.
Carrera A, Saornil MA, Zamora MI, Maderuelo A, Cañamares S, Pastor JC. Detecting amblyogenic diseases with the photographic Bruckner test. Strabismus. 1993;1(1):03-09. [crossref] [PubMed]
12.
Benjamin W, Borish IM. Borish’s Clinical Refraction.1st edition. 1998.
13.
Bhayana AA, Prasad P, Azad SV. Refractive errors and the red reflex-Brückner test revisited. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology. 2019;67(8):1381. [crossref] [PubMed]
14.
Amitava AK, Kewlani D, Khan Z, Razzak A. Assessment of a modification of Brückner’s test as a screening modality for anisometropia and strabismus. Oman Journal of Ophthalmology. 2010;3(3):131. [crossref] [PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/52334.16287

Date of Submission: Sep 09, 2021
Date of Peer Review: Dec 21, 2021
Date of Acceptance: Jan 27, 2022
Date of Publishing: Apr 01, 2022

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Sep 10, 2021
• Manual Googling: Dec 20, 2021
• iThenticate Software: Jan 26, 2022 (10%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com