SavedAdd your journal

Journals / BEYOGLU EYE JOURNAL / 2021 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2

Comparison of Adult Refractive Disorder Measurements Using HandyRef-K, Retinomax, Plusoptix, and Table-top Autorefractometer Devices

Zeynep SEYMEN
Sinan BEKMEZ
Erdem ERİS
Burçin KEPEZ YILDIZ
Aslı VURAL
Tülin ARAS ÖĞREDEN
İrfan PERENTE
Pages
108–114
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: The HDY, RTX, and the PO are suitable for screening in clinical practice, but the findings strongly suggest that they should be used with caution.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: This study was conducted to compare refractive error measurements recorded using the Nidek HandyRef-K handheld autorefractometer (HDY; Nidek Co.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Ltd., Tokyo, Japan), Plusoptix A09 photorefractor (PO; Plusoptix GmbH, Nuremberg, Germany), Retinomax K-plus 3 (RTX; Right Mfg.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: The HDY, RTX, and the PO are suitable for screening in clinical practice, but the findings strongly suggest that they should be used with caution.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objectives: This study was conducted to compare refractive error measurements recorded using the Nidek HandyRef-K handheld autorefractometer (HDY; Nidek Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan), Plusoptix A09 photorefractor (PO; Plusoptix GmbH, Nuremberg, Germany), Retinomax K-plus 3 (RTX; Right Mfg. Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan), and a table-mounted autorefractometer/keratometer (TTR; URK 800, Unicos Co. Ltd., Daejeon, Republic of Korea). Methods: Patients aged ≥18 years underwent measurement of refraction without cycloplegia using 4 devices and the spherical power (SP), cylindrical power (CP), and spherical equivalent (SE) values were analyzed and compared. Results: A total of 181 eyes of 181 patients were enrolled in the study. The mean age of the patients was 33.08±0.95 years (range: 18-79 years). There was a significantly significant difference in the SP, CP, and SE values determined by the devices (p<0.001). The SP and SE values of the RTX and the HDY were similar, while the other device results were different (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, p=0.004). The CP values of the PO and the TTR, the HDY and the TTR were also comparable. Conclusion: The HDY, RTX, and the PO are suitable for screening in clinical practice, but the findings strongly suggest that they should be used with caution.

🔖

Cite This Article

SEYMEN, Z., BEKMEZ, S., ERİS, E., YILDIZ, B. K., VURAL, A., ÖĞREDEN, T. A., PERENTE, İ. (2021). Comparison of Adult Refractive Disorder Measurements Using HandyRef-K, Retinomax, Plusoptix, and Table-top Autorefractometer Devices. BEYOGLU EYE JOURNAL, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2, 108–114. https://ajindex.com/articles/396512

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Goss DA, Grosvenor T. Reliability of refraction--a literature review. J Am Optom Assoc 1996;67:619–30
  2. Williams C, Lumb R, Harvey I, Sparrow J. Screening for refractive errors with the Topcon PR2000 Pediatric Refractometer. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000;41:1031–7
  3. Moghaddam AA, Kargozar A, Zarei- Ghanatavi M, Najjaran M, Nozari V, Shakeri MT. Screening for amblyopia risk factors in pre-verbal children using the Plusoptix photoscreener: a cross sectional population based study. Br J Ophthalmol 2012;96:83– 6
  4. Zhu R, Long KL, Wu XM, Li QD. Comparison of the VISX wavescan and OPD-scan III with the subjective refraction. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2016;20:2988–92
  5. Sanfilippo PG, Chu BS, Bigault O, Kearns LS, Boon MY, Young TL, et al. What is the appropriate age cut-off for cycloplegia in refraction? Acta Ophthalmol 2014;92:e458–62
  6. Payerols A, Eliaou C, Trezeguet V, Villain M, Daien V. Accuracy of PlusOptix A09 distance refraction in pediatric myopia and hyperopia. BMC Ophthalmol 2016;16:72
  7. Ergintürk Acar D, Acar U, Özen Tunay Z, Özdemir Ö, Barak Dolgun NA. Erişkin populasyonda Plusoptix A09 fotorefraktometre ve standart bir otorefraktometre ile ölçülen refraksiyon kusurlarının karşılaştırılması. Turkiye Klinikleri J Ophthalmol 2016;25:100–4
  8. Yilmaz I, Ozkaya A, Alkin Z, Ozbengi S, Yazici AT, Demirok A. Comparison of the Plusoptix A09 and Retinomax K-Plus 3 with retinoscopy in children. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 2015;52:37–42
  9. Ozdemir O, Özen Tunay Z, Petriçli IS, Ergintürk Acar D, Erol MK. Comparison of non-cycloplegic photorefraction, cycloplegic photorefraction and cycloplegic retinoscopy in children. Int J Ophthalmol 2015;8:128–31
  10. Vaughan J, Dale T, Herrera D. Comparison of photoscreening to chart methodology for vision screening. J Sch Nurs 2020:1059840520940370
  11. 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;6:133–42
  12. Wesemann W, Dick B. Accuracy and accommodation capability of a handheld autorefractor. J Cataract Refract Surg 2000;26:62–70
  13. Harvey EM, Miller JM, Dobson V, Tyszko R, Davis AL. Measurement of refractive error in Native American preschoolers: validity and reproducibility of autorefraction. Optom Vis Sci 2000;77:140–9
  14. Cordonnier M, Dramaix M. Screening for abnormal levels of hyperopia in children: a non-cycloplegic method with a hand held refractor. Br J Opht