Clinical evaluation of the Allergan Humphrey 500 autorefractor and the Nidek AR-1000 autorefractor.

Kinge, Bettina; Midelfart, Anna; Jacobsen, Geir

doi:10.1136/bjo.80.1.35

Cited by 55 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…9,11,13,14,19 Positive defocus errors may be less acceptable than negative errors; if there is sufficient accommodation, it may be possible to compensate for the positive defocus errors. For example, ϩ0.50 DS errors produced a 0.13 log unit reduction in binocular visual acuity, whereas -0.50 DS errors had no significant effect.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Quantification of Refractive Error: Comparison of Autorefractor and Focometer

Toit

Soong

Brian

et al. 2006

Optometry and Vision Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study highlighted the focometer's restricted power range, inaccuracy of astigmatism and axis determination, and dependence on subject understanding and compliance. Therefore, in most clinical settings, the focometer would not be adequate for quantifying refractive error, but the focometer spherical equivalent was within acceptable limits of the autorefractor, and the visual acuity with lenses determined by the focometer indicates its potential usefulness in public health settings, especially where only spherical ready-made spectacles are dispensed. There may be more cost-effective ways to determine refractive error in these circumstances. A potentially important enhancement in focometer methodology that improves its ease of use was identified: use only the third measurement for each eye.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Quantification of Refractive Error: Comparison of Autorefractor and Focometer

Toit

Soong

Brian

et al. 2006

Optometry and Vision Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a recent study, Kinge and colleagues15 evaluated agreement between subjective refraction and autorefraction in adult subjects made cycloplegic. For Table 6, we analysed our data according to the method used by Kinge et al 15.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Harvey

Miller

Wagner

et al. 1997

British Journal of Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 diVerences. Retinomax reproducibility averaged 0.43 D. Unbiased Retinomax and retinoscopy measurements diVered by an average of 0.82 D. Unbiased Retinomax and subjectively refined retinoscopy diVered by an average of 1.03 D. Conclusions-Reproducibility of Retinomax measured values in children is comparable with reproducibility of retinoscopy, 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. (Br J Ophthalmol 1997;81:941-948) High refractive error (for example, anisometropia, astigmatism, hyperopia) in early childhood can lead to amblyopia.

show abstract

“…The results obtained by the subjective distance refractive method were used in the analysis and the refractive values were converted into spherical equivalents (SER) for some analysis (i.e. sphere value π0.5 of the cylinder value) (Kinge et al 1996). Myopia was defined as SER AEª0.25 D, emmetropia as SER ±ª0.25 D and ∞0.50 D and hyperopia as SER Ø0.50 D.…”

Section: Presentation Of the Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Refractive errors among young adults and university students in Norway

Kinge

Midelfart

Jacobsen

1998

Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT.Purpose: This study was initiated to compare the refractive state in a population sample to that among university students in Norway and to that among the general population in other Nordic countries. Methods: A population sample of 112 individuals and 224 engineering students were randomly selected and examined using automated and clinical refraction in cycloplegia. Results: Statistically significant differences were found in prevalences of myopia (population sample: 33 %, students: 47%, p: 0.016) and prevalences of hyperopia (population sample: 47%, students: 30%, p: 0.001) between the two groups. The mean refractive error among the population sample was ª0.1∫2.0 D compared to ª0.6∫2.2 D among the students (pΩ0.0013). Conclusions:The population sample had a significantly lower prevalence of myopia and a higher prevalence of hyperopia than the student population. The state of refraction in the population sample was found to be in agreement with results reported from other Nordic countries.

show abstract

Clinical evaluation of the Allergan Humphrey 500 autorefractor and the Nidek AR-1000 autorefractor.

Cited by 55 publications

References 13 publications

Quantification of Refractive Error: Comparison of Autorefractor and Focometer

Quantification of Refractive Error: Comparison of Autorefractor and Focometer

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

Refractive errors among young adults and university students in Norway

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About