Skip to main content
The British Journal of Ophthalmology logoLink to The British Journal of Ophthalmology
. 1997 Nov;81(11):941–948. doi: 10.1136/bjo.81.11.941

Reproducibility and accuracy of measurements with a hand held autorefractor in children

E Harvey 1, J Miller 1, L Wagner 1, V Dobson 1
PMCID: PMC1722054  PMID: 9505815

Abstract

AIM—To determine reproducibility and accuracy of the Nikon Retinomax autorefractor when used with children who were made cycloplegic.
METHODS—Autorefraction and retinoscopy or subjectively refined retinoscopy (where, under the patient's direction, the refraction was varied until the best visual acuity was achieved) were performed on the right eye of 47 children, age 11-93 months. Autorefraction was performed using the Nikon Retinomax, which provides up to eight measured values of refractive error and one representative measurement of refractive error.
RESULTS—Autorefractor measurements were successfully obtained from 7/9 children age 3 years or younger, and from all older children. Vector methods were used to calculate differences. Retinomax reproducibility averaged 0.43 D. Unbiased Retinomax and retinoscopy measurements differed by an average of 0.82 D. Unbiased Retinomax and subjectively refined retinoscopy differed by an average of 1.03 D.
CONCLUSIONS—Reproducibility of Retinomax measured values in children is comparable with reproducibility of retino scopy, subjective refraction, and autorefraction measurements in adults. Agreement between Retinomax and retinoscopy and agreement between Retinomax and subjective refinement in children is comparable with agreement between autorefraction and subjective refraction in adults. The study indicates that the Retinomax is a useful instrument for measuring refractive errors in young children.



Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (120.5 KB).

Figure 1  .

Figure 1  

Individual subjects' Retinomax measured values plotted by age of subject. Circles represent the vector dioptric difference between each Retinomax estimate of a subject's refractive error and the average dioptric value13 of that subject's measured values. The Retinomax representative measurement of refractive error is not the mean of the individual measured values, as outliers are discarded.

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Cobb S. R., MacDonald C. F. Resolution acuity in astigmats: evidence for a critical period in the human visual system. Br J Physiol Opt. 1978;32:38–49. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Freeman R. D., Mitchell D. E., Millodot M. A neural effect of partial visual deprivation in humans. Science. 1972 Mar 24;175(4028):1384–1386. doi: 10.1126/science.175.4028.1384. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Harris W. F. Algebra of sphero-cylinders and refractive errors, and their means, variance, and standard deviation. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1988 Oct;65(10):794–802. doi: 10.1097/00006324-198810000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Hopkisson B., Arnold P., Billingham B., McGarrigle M., Shribman S. Can retinoscopy be used to screen infants for amblyopia? A longitudinal study of refraction in the first year of life. Eye (Lond) 1992;6(Pt 6):607–609. doi: 10.1038/eye.1992.131. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Ingram R. M., Traynar M. J., Walker C., Wilson J. M. Screening for refractive errors at age 1 year: a pilot study. Br J Ophthalmol. 1979 Apr;63(4):243–250. doi: 10.1136/bjo.63.4.243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Kinge B., Midelfart A., Jacobsen G. Clinical evaluation of the Allergan Humphrey 500 autorefractor and the Nidek AR-1000 autorefractor. Br J Ophthalmol. 1996 Jan;80(1):35–39. doi: 10.1136/bjo.80.1.35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Lithander J., Sjöstrand J. Anisometropic and strabismic amblyopia in the age group 2 years and above: a prospective study of the results of treatment. Br J Ophthalmol. 1991 Feb;75(2):111–116. doi: 10.1136/bjo.75.2.111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Long W. F. A matrix formalism for decentration problems. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1976 Jan;53(1):27–33. doi: 10.1097/00006324-197601000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Mitchell D. E., Freeman R. D., Millodot M., Haegerstrom G. Meridional amblyopia: evidence for modification of the human visual system by early visual experience. Vision Res. 1973 Mar;13(3):535–558. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(73)90023-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Mohindra I., Jacobson S. G., Held R. Binocular visual form deprivation in human infants. Doc Ophthalmol. 1983 May 1;55(3):237–249. doi: 10.1007/BF00140811. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Rosenfield M., Chiu N. N. Repeatability of subjective and objective refraction. Optom Vis Sci. 1995 Aug;72(8):577–579. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Safir A., Hyams L., Philpot J., Jagerman L. S. Studies in refraction. I. The precision of retinoscopy. Arch Ophthalmol. 1970 Jul;84(1):49–61. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1970.00990040051013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Zadnik K., Mutti D. O., Adams A. J. The repeatability of measurement of the ocular components. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1992 Jun;33(7):2325–2333. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The British Journal of Ophthalmology are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES