Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The British Journal of Ophthalmology logoLink to The British Journal of Ophthalmology
. 1999 Feb;83(2):157–161. doi: 10.1136/bjo.83.2.157

Screening for refractive errors in children: accuracy of the hand held refractor Retinomax to screen for astigmatism

M Cordonnier 1, M Dramaix 1
PMCID: PMC1722933  PMID: 10396190

Abstract

AIMS—To assess the reliability of the hand held automated refractor Retinomax in measuring astigmatism in non-cycloplegic conditions. To assess the accuracy of Retinomax in diagnosing abnormal astigmatism in non-cycloplegic refractive screening of children between 9 and 36 months.
METHODS—Among 1205 children undergoing a non-cycloplegic refractive screening with Retinomax, 299 (25%) had repeated non-cycloplegic measurements, 302 (25%) were refracted under cycloplegia using the same refractor, and 88 (7%) using retinoscopy or an automated on table refractor. The reproducibility of non-cycloplegic cylinder measurement was assessed by comparing the cylindrical power and axis values in the 299 repeated measurements without cycloplegia. The influence of the quick mode on cylinder measurement was analysed by comparing the cylinder and axis value in 93 repeated measurements without cycloplegia where normal mode was used in one measurement and quick mode in the other. Predictive values of the refractive screening were calculated for three different thresholds of manifest astigmatism (⩾1.5, ⩾1.75, and ⩾2 D) considering as a true positive case an astigmatism ⩾2 D under cycloplegic condition (measured by retinoscopy, on table, or hand held refractor).
RESULTS—The 95% limits of agreement between two repeated manifest cylinder measurements with Retinomax attained levels slightly less than plus or minus 1 D. The 95% limits of agreement for the axis were plus or minus 46°. The comparison of non-cycloplegic measurements in the quick and normal mode showed no significant difference and 95% limits of agreement plus or minus 0.75 D. The mean difference between non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic cylinder values measured by Retinomax reached 0.17 D and was statistically significant. Manifest thresholds of ⩾1.5 D, ⩾1.75 D, ⩾2 D cylinder value diagnosed 2 D of astigmatism under cycloplegia respectively with 71-84%, 59-80%, 51-54% of sensitivity (right eye-left eye) and 90-92%, 95%, 98% of specificity.
CONCLUSION—Without cycloplegia, Retinomax is able to measure cylinder power with the same reproducibility as cycloplegic retinoscopy. No significant difference was found in the cylinder values obtained with the quick and the normal modes. Therefore, the quick mode of measurement is recommended as it is more feasible in children. No difference, which is significant from a screening point of view, exists between the non-cycloplegic and the cycloplegic cylinder value (<0.25 D). Retinomax diagnoses abnormal astigmatism (⩾2 D) in a non-cycloplegic refractive screening at preschool ages with 51-84% sensitivity rates and 98-90% specificity rates, depending on the chosen threshold of manifest astigmatism. If 2 D of manifest astigmatism is chosen as a positive test, the positive predictive value of the screening reaches 81-84% and the negative predictive value 91-90% (right eye-left eye).

 Keywords: non-cycloplegic refractive screening; astigmatism; hand held infrared automated refractor; Retinomax

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (109.1 KB).

Figure 1  .

Figure 1  

Open in a new tab

(A) Age distribution (months) of the 1205 screened children. (B) Age distribution (months) of the 302 children refracted by Retinomax with and without cycloplegia. (C) Age distribution (months) of the 88 children refracted by retinoscopy or on table refractor.

Selected References

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

  1. Atkinson J., Braddick O., Robier B., Anker S., Ehrlich D., King J., Watson P., Moore A. Two infant vision screening programmes: prediction and prevention of strabismus and amblyopia from photo- and videorefractive screening. Eye (Lond) 1996;10(Pt 2):189–198. doi: 10.1038/eye.1996.46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Banks M. S. Infant refraction and accommodation. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 1980 Spring;20(1):205–232. doi: 10.1097/00004397-198002010-00010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Berman M., Nelson P., Caden B. Objective refraction: comparison of retinoscopy and automated techniques. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1984 Mar;61(3):204–209. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bland J. M., Altman D. G. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307–310. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cordonnier M., Dramaix M. Screening for abnormal levels of hyperopia in children: a non-cycloplegic method with a hand held refractor. Br J Ophthalmol. 1998 Nov;82(11):1260–1264. doi: 10.1136/bjo.82.11.1260. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cordonnier M, Dramaix M, Kallay O, de Bideran M How accurate is the hand-held refractor Retinomax(R) in measuring cycloplegic refraction: a further evaluation. Strabismus. 1998 Sep;6(3):133–142. doi: 10.1076/stra.6.3.133.661. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Friedburg D., Klöppel K. P. Frühzeitige Korrektion von Hyperopie und Astigmatismus bei Kindern führt zu besserer Entwicklung der Sehschärfe. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 1996 Jul;209(1):21–24. doi: 10.1055/s-2008-1035271. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Haase W. Die Refraktion im Kindesalter als Risikofaktor für die Entwicklung von Amblyopien und/oder Strabismus. Niederschrift nach einem Rundtischgespräch whrend der 89. Tagung der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft am 25. 9. 1991 in Leipzig. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 1994 Jan;204(1):48–54. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Ingram R. M., Walker C., Wilson J. M., Arnold P. E., Dally S. Prediction of amblyopia and squint by means of refraction at age 1 year. Br J Ophthalmol. 1986 Jan;70(1):12–15. doi: 10.1136/bjo.70.1.12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. McBrien N. A., Millodot M. Clinical evaluation of the Canon Autoref R-1. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1985 Nov;62(11):786–792. doi: 10.1097/00006324-198511000-00011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Preslan M. W., Novak A. Baltimore Vision Screening Project. Ophthalmology. 1996 Jan;103(1):105–109. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(96)30753-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Rubin A., Harris W. F. Refractive variation during autorefraction: multivariate distribution of refractive status. Optom Vis Sci. 1995 Jun;72(6):403–410. doi: 10.1097/00006324-199506000-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Saunders K. J. Early refractive development in humans. Surv Ophthalmol. 1995 Nov-Dec;40(3):207–216. doi: 10.1016/s0039-6257(95)80027-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Sjöstrand J., Abrahamsson M. Risk factors in amblyopia. Eye (Lond) 1990;4(Pt 6):787–793. doi: 10.1038/eye.1990.124. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Wood I. C., Papas E., Burghardt D., Hardwick G. A clinical evaluation of the Nidek Autorefractor. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1984;4(2):169–178. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. 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