Comparison of Spherical Equivalent Refraction and Astigmatism Measured with Three Different Models of Autorefractors

Purpose. The purpose of this study was to compare refractions measured with three different autorefractors. Methods. The refractive error of each eye of 50 adults aged 17 to 59 years (mean, 30.5 years) was measured without cycloplegia using the Canon R-1 and two newer instruments, the Grand Seiko WR-5100K and the Nidek ARK 700-A. For the first two, an isolated line of 20/100 letters on an ETDRS chart at 4.0 m served as a target, whereas for the Nidek, the subject looked at a picture of a balloon in the instrument. Five readings were taken for each eye, and the data (sphere, negative cylinder power, and axis) were analyzed using Fourier decomposition of the power profile. Each reading was broken down into the spherical equivalent (M) and two Jackson crossed-cylinder vectors, J0 and J45. Right-eye results are reported. Results. The mean spherical equivalent refraction measured by the Canon R-1 was −2.44 D. Measurements from the Grand Seiko were more hyperopic (mean M, −2.01 D), whereas those from the Nidek were more myopic (mean M, −2.66 D). Correlation of M for each pair of autorefractors was 0.99. For J0, the Canon was more minus than the other two instruments by 0.15 D compared with the Nidek and 0.13 D with the Grand Seiko, and on this component, the correlation of the Canon with each of the other two was 0.87. Mean J0 values for the Nidek and Grand Seiko were similar, 0.05 D and 0.03 D, respectively, and mean J45 values were 0.04 D for both instruments. Correlations were 0.97 between these two autorefractors for each of the two components. J45 measured by the Canon was more positive than the other two by 0.06 D. For J45, the correlation of the Canon with the Grand Seiko was 0.40 and with the Nidek was 0.38. In 92% of the eyes, the absolute difference in cylinder power between the Grand Seiko and the Nidek was ≤0.25 D. Only 42% of the differences between the Canon and the Grand Seiko and 40% of the differences between the Canon and the Nidek were this small. Conclusions. The Canon provided more myopic readings than the Grand Seiko and more hyperopic readings than the Nidek. The Canon measured more astigmatism that did not correlate well with the other instruments, whereas measurements of astigmatism taken by the Nidek and the Grand Seiko showed good agreement. If the Grand Seiko is used in place of the older Canon, the differences in spherical equivalent and astigmatism must be considered.

[1]  D. Mutti,et al.  Tonic accommodation, age, and refractive error in children. , 1999, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[2]  R. Held,et al.  Myopic children show insufficient accommodative response to blur. , 1993, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[3]  I. Wood,et al.  A CLINICAL EVALUATION OF THE NIDEK AUTOREFRACTOR , 1984, Ophthalmic & physiological optics.

[4]  S. Chat,et al.  Clinical evaluation of the Shin-Nippon SRW-5000 autorefractor in children. , 2001, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[5]  N C Strang,et al.  Differences in the accommodation stimulus response curves of adult myopes and emmetropes , 1998, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[6]  N. Mcbrien,et al.  A longitudinal investigation of adult-onset and adult-progression of myopia in an occupational group. Refractive and biometric findings. , 1997, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[7]  M. Rosenfield,et al.  Do Progressing Myopes Show Reduced Accommodative Responses? , 2002, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[8]  J. Wolffsohn,et al.  Clinical Evaluation of the Shin-Nippon NVision-K 5001/Grand Seiko WR-5100K Autorefractor , 2003, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[9]  G. Jacobsen,et al.  Clinical evaluation of the Allergan Humphrey 500 autorefractor and the Nidek AR-1000 autorefractor. , 1996, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[10]  Leslie Hyman,et al.  A randomized clinical trial of progressive addition lenses versus single vision lenses on the progression of myopia in children. , 2003, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[11]  T. Simpson,et al.  Repeatability and Accuracy of Automated Refraction: A Comparison of the Nikon NRK-8000, the Nidek AR-1000, and Subjective Refraction , 1997, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[12]  J S Wolffsohn,et al.  Clinical evaluation of the Shin-Nippon SRW-5000 autorefractor in adults. , 2001, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[13]  M Millodot,et al.  Clinical evaluation of the Canon Autoref R-1. , 1985, American journal of optometry and physiological optics.

[14]  D. Mutti,et al.  Repeatability and validity of astigmatism measurements. , 1999, Journal of refractive surgery.

[15]  J S Wolffsohn,et al.  Continuous recording of accommodation and pupil size using the Shin-Nippon SRW-5000 autorefractor. , 2001, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[16]  L. Graya,et al.  Accommodation microfluctuations and pupil size during sustained viewing of visual display terminals , 1999 .

[17]  Karla Zadnik,et al.  Ocular Component Data in Schoolchildren as a Function of Age and Gender , 2003, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[18]  J. White,et al.  Effect of accommodative adaptation on static and dynamic accommodation in emmetropia and late-onset myopia. , 1999, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[19]  L. Thibos,et al.  Power Vectors: An Application of Fourier Analysis to the Description and Statistical Analysis of Refractive Error , 1997, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.