May 2004
Volume 45, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2004
Repeatability and Accuracy of Autorefractor Measurements in Young Children
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • S.J. Huffman
    College of Optometry, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
  • K.L. Schimmoeller
    College of Optometry, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
  • P. Schmidt
    College of Optometry, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
  • G. Mitchell
    College of Optometry, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  S.J. Huffman, None; K.L. Schimmoeller, None; P. Schmidt, None; G. Mitchell, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  Welch Allyn Study #736376, Beta Sigma Kappy #333180, Pediatric Studies #201158
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2004, Vol.45, 2736. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      S.J. Huffman, K.L. Schimmoeller, P. Schmidt, G. Mitchell; Repeatability and Accuracy of Autorefractor Measurements in Young Children . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2004;45(13):2736.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose: This investigation establishes repeatability and accuracy of the Nikon Retinomax and the Welch Allyn SureSight 2.04 autorefractor measurements not yet fully documented in young children with significant refractive error. Methods: Children (n=31), age 3–5 years, with significant refractive error (hyperopia>+3.25DS and astigmatism>1.50DC) were identified. Refractive error was separately determined by cycloplegic retinoscopy. Separate, repeated measurements were made with two autorefractors on noncyclopleged eyes of each child. Repeatability is defined by within subject standard deviation (SD). Accuracy is defined as the comparison of autorefractor measurements to that of cycloplegic retinoscopy. ROC curves were used to investigate accuracy as measured by the discriminative ability of each autorefractor. Results: No significant difference was found between autorefractors for the number of measurements required to obtain 4 reliable measurements or the percent of reliable measurements. Retinomax–The within subject standard deviation was 0.38 for sphere and 0.20 for cylinder. The expected difference in pairs of observations was 1.0DS and 0.50DC. The Retinomax offers excellent discrimination between hyperopic and non–hyperopic eyes (area=0.9000). The Retinomax also offers acceptable discrimination between astigmatic and non–astigmatic eyes (area=0.716). SureSight–The within subject standard deviation was 0.69 for sphere and 0.28 for cylinder. The expected difference in pairs of observations was 1.9DS and 0.75DC. The ability of the SureSight to discriminate hyperopic eyes from non–hyperopic eyes appears less than acceptable (area=0.667). The SureSight does offer acceptable discrimination of astigmatic and non–astigmatic eye (area=0.790). Conclusions: Children were testable with both instruments. For both the Retinomax and the SureSight, variability of measurements is not related to the mean magnitude of refractive error. The mean difference of autrefractor measurements from cycloplegic retinoscopy does not depend on the magnitude of refractive error for the Retinomax, but does for the SureSight. The Retinomax offers excellent discrimination between astigmatic and non–astigmatic eyes. The SureSight appears not to offer acceptable discrimination between hyperopic and non–hyperopic eyes, but does between astigmatic and non–astigmatic eyes.

Keywords: hyperopia • astigmatism • screening for ambylopia and strabismus 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×