May 2006
Volume 47, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2006
Reliability of Auto–Refraction Compared to Manifest as an Effective Tool for Determination of Refractive Error
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • C. Koonapareddy
    Ophthalmology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY
  • S.P. Epstein
    Ophthalmology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY
  • M. Ahdoot
    Ophthalmology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY
  • P.A. Asbell
    Ophthalmology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  C. Koonapareddy, None; S.P. Epstein, None; M. Ahdoot, None; P.A. Asbell, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  This study is supported in part by research grant from NEI#5P30EY01867 and Research to Prevent Blindness, Inc.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2006, Vol.47, 1178. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      C. Koonapareddy, S.P. Epstein, M. Ahdoot, P.A. Asbell; Reliability of Auto–Refraction Compared to Manifest as an Effective Tool for Determination of Refractive Error . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2006;47(13):1178.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: : Auto refraction needs to be accurate and reliable both for prescribing glasses or evaluating refractive error for refractive surgery. Accurate and reliable refraction would allow auxiliary personnel in developing countries to provide standardized, unbiased, refractive error measurements enabling to create precision spectacles thus preventing avoidable functional blindness, a leading cause of poor vision worldwide. We compared the reliability of a new auto–refractor (NIDEK–OPD Scan) with manifest refraction.

Methods: : Retrospective analysis of data obtained on 14 patients considering refractive surgery was analyzed. All patients had a complete eye exam that excluded other ocular diseases other than refractive error. Analysis included: sex; manifest; auto–refraction; with sphere, cylinder, and axis. Results obtained from manifest and auto–refraction were compared utilizing paired student t–test. The auto–refractor that was used works on a 3–D Wave technology, the 3–D Wave is based on the dynamic skiascopy principle, which when used to measure the refractive power enables the system to read all the aberrations of the eye, including higher–order aberrations.

Results: : On average, autorefraction gave a spherical equivalent (SE) that was slightly more negative than manifest refraction. The mean difference in SE in 5 of the 14 patients was 0.02± 0.05 (SD), in 3 patients it was 0.25± 0.075 (SD), in the remaining 6 patients it was 0.50± 0.025 (SD). Repeatability for all refractive error measurements was < 0.50 diopter (D).

Conclusions: : Auto–refraction with OPD scan appears to be an accurate method useful for determining refractive error, as compared to manifest the "gold standard". It can also be used to prescribing spectacles for preventing early onset functional blindness. Such automated systems may also be helpful in large scale screenings and in clinical trials where refractive error is an important endpoint. It can be easily used by non–professionals for prescribing corrective eyewear.

Keywords: refraction • refractive error development • vision and action 
×
×

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.

×