Comparisons of the handheld autorefractor, table-mounted autorefractor, and subjective refraction in Singapore adults.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this article was to compare the Retinomax with the table-mounted autorefractor and subjective refraction in Singapore adults.


METHODS
Adults (n = 100) attending a tertiary eye hospital clinic were examined by an optometrist. First, subjective refraction testing was performed using a trial lens set, followed by handheld autorefractor tests using the Nikon Retinomax and the table-mounted autorefractor (Topcon RM8000B). Spherical equivalent and vector components of astigmatism were analyzed: J0 (Cartesian astigmatism) and J45 (oblique astigmatism).


RESULTS
The Retinomax autorefractor readings (mean = -4.69 D) were more minus compared with the table-mounted autorefractor (mean = -4.05 D) and subjective refraction (mean = -3.90 D). There were significant differences in J0 and J45 for comparisons between subjective refraction and Retinomax autorefraction, and table-mounted autorefraction and Retinomax autorefraction.


CONCLUSIONS
The Retinomax autorefractor measures were more minus compared with the table-mounted autorefractor and subjective refraction. The Retinomax autorefractor is not recommended for research purposes, unless in remote inaccessible areas where a portable instrument is necessary and cycloplegia is not possible.
Farook
Mohamed
M
Singapore National Eye Centre.
Venkatramani
Jayant
J
Gazzard
Gus
G
Cheng
Angela
A
Tan
Donald
D
Saw
Seang-Mei
SM
D000328:Adult; D004867:Equipment Design; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D015995:Prevalence; D012029:Refraction, Ocular / Q000502:physiology*; D012030:Refractive Errors / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000503:physiopathology*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D012846:Singapore / Q000453:epidemiology; D014787:Vision Tests / Q000295:instrumentation*