These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparisons of the handheld autorefractor, table-mounted autorefractor, and subjective refraction in Singapore adults.
    Author: Farook M, Venkatramani J, Gazzard G, Cheng A, Tan D, Saw SM.
    Journal: Optom Vis Sci; 2005 Dec; 82(12):1066-70. PubMed ID: 16357649.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]