Literature DB >> 15630406

Retinoscopy/autorefraction: which is the best starting point for a noncycloplegic refraction?

Jorge Jorge1, António Queirós, José B Almeida, Manuel A Parafita.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to estimate the agreement between an autorefractor (Nidek ARK 700A, Gamagori, Japan) and retinoscopy with subjective refraction.
METHODS: Measurements of autorefraction obtained with the ARK700A and retinoscopy were performed on 192 right eyes from 192 healthy young adults and compared with subjective refraction. These measurements were performed without cycloplegia. The age range was 18 to 34 years, with a mean value of 21.6 years and an SD of 2.66 years.
RESULTS: A comparison of the autorefractor and subjective refraction results shows that (1) for the mean spherical equivalent (M), the autorefractor yields more negative values (-0.44 +/- 0.54 D; p = 0.000); (2) for the Jackson cross-cylinder at axis 0 degrees (J0), the autorefractor yields more positive values than the subjective ones (0.05 +/- 0.13 D; p = 0.000); and (3) for the Jackson cross-cylinder at axis 45 degrees (J45), the autorefractor results are more negative (-0.02 +/- 0.09 D; p = 0.019). The differences found for each component M, J0, and J45 are statistically significant. By comparing retinoscopy with the subjective examination, there are no statistically significant differences found for the M component (-0.02 +/- 0.33 D; p = 0.304). For the J0 and J45 components, the differences are statistically significant (0.07 +/- 0.10 D, p = 0.000; -0.01 +/- 0.08 D, p = 0.008).
CONCLUSIONS: The present results confirm that when performed by an experienced clinician, retinoscopy is more accurate than automatic refraction, giving a better starting point to noncycloplegic refraction.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15630406

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Optom Vis Sci        ISSN: 1040-5488            Impact factor:   1.973


  13 in total

1.  [Agreement of subjective and objective refraction measurements following INTRACOR femtosecond laser treatment].

Authors:  A Fitting; A Ehmer; T M Rabsilber; G U Auffarth; M P Holzer
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 1.059

2.  Validity of automated refraction after segmented refractive multifocal intraocular lens implantation.

Authors:  César Albarrán-Diego; Gonzalo Muñoz; Stephanie Rohrweck; Santiago García-Lázaro; José Ricardo Albero
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-11-18       Impact factor: 1.779

3.  A novel method to measure margin reflex distance using the autorefractometer.

Authors:  Demet Yolcu; Sibel Ozdogan
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-11-05       Impact factor: 2.031

4.  Biometric and refractive changes after orbital decompression in Korean patients with thyroid-associated orbitopathy.

Authors:  W S Kim; Y S Chun; B Y Cho; J K Lee
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2015-11-20       Impact factor: 3.775

5.  Agreement Between Retinoscopy, Autorefractometry and Subjective Refraction for Determining Refractive Errors in Congolese Children.

Authors:  Sabrina N Mukash; David L Kayembe; Jean-Claude Mwanza
Journal:  Clin Optom (Auckl)       Date:  2021-04-21

6.  Autorefraction, Retinoscopy, Javal's Rule, and Grosvenor's Modified Javal's Rule: The Best Predictor of Refractive Astigmatism.

Authors:  Kofi Asiedu; Samuel Kyei; Emmanuel Ekow Ampiah
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-10-10       Impact factor: 1.909

7.  Repeatability of ARK-30 in a pediatric population.

Authors:  Laura Hernandez-Moreno; Ana Vallelado-Alvarez; Raul Martin
Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 1.848

8.  Assessment of subjective refraction with a clinical adaptive optics visual simulator.

Authors:  Lucía Hervella; Eloy A Villegas; Pedro M Prieto; Pablo Artal
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2018-10-08       Impact factor: 3.351

9.  Are the results of handheld auto-refractometer as valid as the result of table-mounted refractometer?

Authors:  Ali Mirzajani; Fateme Qasemi; Amir Asharlous; Abbasali Yekta; Asgar Doostdar; Mehdi Khabazkhoob; Hassan Hashemi
Journal:  J Curr Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-11-22

10.  A Comparison Between Refraction From an Adaptive Optics Visual Simulator and Clinical Refractions.

Authors:  Juan Tabernero; Carles Otero; Shahina Pardhan
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2020-06-22       Impact factor: 3.283

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.