부산대학교 도서관

AIMS To assess the agreement between the hand-heldautorefractor Retinomax® and three different on-table autorefractors whenmeasuring cycloplegic refraction in subjects with small and high ametropia. To assess the agreement between the cycloplegic refraction using the Retinomax®and by retinoscopy in children with small and high ametropia. METHODS. Part A. 276 subjects were refracted under cycloplegia using boththe Retinomax® and an on-table infrared automated refractor (Topcon RM-A6000, Nidek AR 800 or Nikon NR 5000). They were separated into subjects withsmallametropia (mean sphere ≤ 3.5 D hyperopia, ≤ 3 D myopia) and high ametropia(mean sphere > 3.5 D hyperopia, > 3 D myopia). The agreement between bothtypes of refractors regarding the different refractive components was assessedfor the whole group and for the two subgroups of small and high ametropia. Part B . 48 infants were refracted under cycloplegia by retinoscopyand by the Retinomax®. The agreement between both methods of refractionwas analyzed in the same manner as in part A. RESULTS Part A . No significant bias was found between the twotypes of refractors with regard to the spherical equivalent. The 95% limitsof agreement were +/- 1 D. Although no clinically significant bias was foundwith regard to the cylinder power in the 276 subjects, it was found that the95% limits of agreement were much better (+/- 0.75 D) in small ametropia subjectsthan in high ametropia subjects (-2.1 to +1.3 D). No significant bias wasfound with regard to the axis determination. Part B . No significant bias was found between the Retinomax®and retinoscopic measurements with regard to the spherical equivalent. The95% limits of agreement were -1.36 to +1.76 D. However, the mean differencefor spheres and cylinders showed a positive bias and a negative bias, respectively,suggesting more positive spheres and larger cylinders when measured by theRetinomax® compared to retinoscopy. This... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]