Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Clinical Evaluation of the Humphrey Automatic Refractor

Clinical Evaluation of the Humphrey Automatic Refractor Abstract • A new automatic objective refractor was used on healthy adults. In the absence of cycloplegic drugs, spherocylindrical objective refractions performed with the instrument provided 20/20 acuity 96% as often as with standard subjective techniques. No instrument-induced accommodations effects were seen. One hundred percent of instrument spherical findings were repeatable within 0.50 diopters; all cylindrical findings were repeatable within 0.37 D. This result represents a higher level of repeatability than that reported for standard subjective refraction under clinical conditions. In the absence of cycloplegic drugs, the correlation coefficient between the instrument's findings and standard subjective spherical findings was.97 v.98 between two practitioners' subjective refractions. The average difference between cylindrical findings of the instrument and those of an experienced practitioner was 0.04 D larger than the average difference seen between two practitioners using subjective techniques. References 1. Guyton DL: Automated clinical refraction , in Duane TD (ed): Clinical Ophthalmology. Hagerstown, Md, Harper & Row Publishers Inc, 1982, vol 1, pp 1-29. 2. Guillon M: Automatic electronic optometers: Review of the clinical literature . Optician 1978;175:12-16. 3. Safir A, Knoll H, Mohrman R: Automatic objective refraction: Report of a clinical trial . Trans Am Acad Ophthalmol Otolaryngol 1970; 74:1266-1275. 4. Safir A, Kulikowski C, Deuschle K: Automatic refraction: How it is done: Some clinical results . Sightsaving 1973;43:137-148. 5. Safir A, Kulikowski C, Crocetti A, et al: A new method of vision care delivery: A pilot study . Health Serv Rep 1973;88:405-415.Crossref 6. Floyd RP, Garcia G: The Ophthalmetron . Arch Ophthalmol 1974;92:10-14.Crossref 7. Bizzell JW, Hendrick JC, Goldberg MF, et al: Clinical evaluation of an infrared refracting instrument . Arch Ophthalmol 1974;92:103-108.Crossref 8. Hill JF: Comparison of computerized refraction with standard refractive technique . Optom Weekly 1973;64:21-24. 9. Dyson C: A clinical study of the Autorefractor, an automatic refracting device . Can J Ophthalmol 1977;12:29-33. 10. Pappas C, Anderson DR, Briese F: Clinical evaluation of the 6600 Autorefractor . Arch Ophthalmol 1978;96:993-996.Crossref 11. Pappas C, Anderson DR, Briese F: Is the Autorefractor reading closest to manifest refraction . Arch Ophthalmol 1978;96:997-998.Crossref 12. Freeman MI: Automated refraction . Contact Intraocul Lens Med J 1981;7:252-257. 13. Sloan P, Poise K: Preliminary clinical evaluation of the Dioptron . Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1974;51:189-197.Crossref 14. Poise K, Kerr K: An automatic objective optometer . Arch Ophthalmol 1975;93:225-231.Crossref 15. Drance SM, Mitchell DWA, Schulzer M: Studies of an automatic refraction machine . Can J Ophthalmol 1975;10:462-468. 16. Mailer CM: Automatic refraction and the private ophthalmologist: Dioptron II compared with subjective examination . Can J Ophthalmol 1978;13:252-257. 17. French C, Wood I: The Dioptron II—in practice . Optician 1981;181:18-30. 18. Ruben ML: Symposium: Automatic refraction, summary . Trans Am Acad Ophthalmol Otolaryngol 1975;79:511-512. 19. Sasieni LS: A guide to automatic refractors . Optician 1982;183:11-18. 20. Miranda MN: Residual accommodation: A comparison between cyclopentolate 1% and a combination of cyclopentolate 1% and tropicamide 1% . Arch Ophthalmol 1972;87:515-517.Crossref 21. Michaels DD: Visual Optics and Refraction , ed 2. St Louis, CV Mosby Co, 1980, pp 377-401. 22. Kratz LD, Flom ML: The Humphrey vision analyzer: Reliability and validity of refractive error measures . Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1977; 54:653-659.Crossref 23. Perrigin J, Perrigin D, Grosvenor T: A comparison of clinical refractive data obtained by three examiners . Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1982;59:515-519.Crossref 24. French CN, Jennings JAM: Errors in subjective refraction . Ophthalmic Optician 1974; 14:797-806. 25. Freeman H, Hood FAB: Comparative analysis of retinoscopic and subjective refraction . Br J Physiol Opt 1955;12:8-36. 26. Sloan AE, Dunphy EB, Emmons WV, et al: A comparison of refraction results on the same individuals . Am J Ophthalmol 1954;37:696-699. 27. Naylor EJ: Astigmatic difference in refractive errors . Br J Ophthalmol 1968;52:422-424.Crossref 28. Duke-Elder S (ed): System of Ophthalmology. St Louis, CV Mosby Co, 1970, vol 5: Duke-Elder S, Abrams D: Ophthalmic Optics and Refraction , p 186. 29. Charman WN, Jennings JAM, Whitefoot H: The refraction of the eye in relation to spherical aberration and pupil size . Br J Physiol Opt 1978;32:78-93. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Archives of Ophthalmology American Medical Association

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-medical-association/clinical-evaluation-of-the-humphrey-automatic-refractor-LAO7gnh9pU
Publisher
American Medical Association
Copyright
Copyright © 1984 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.
ISSN
0003-9950
eISSN
1538-3687
DOI
10.1001/archopht.1984.01040030690020
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract • A new automatic objective refractor was used on healthy adults. In the absence of cycloplegic drugs, spherocylindrical objective refractions performed with the instrument provided 20/20 acuity 96% as often as with standard subjective techniques. No instrument-induced accommodations effects were seen. One hundred percent of instrument spherical findings were repeatable within 0.50 diopters; all cylindrical findings were repeatable within 0.37 D. This result represents a higher level of repeatability than that reported for standard subjective refraction under clinical conditions. In the absence of cycloplegic drugs, the correlation coefficient between the instrument's findings and standard subjective spherical findings was.97 v.98 between two practitioners' subjective refractions. The average difference between cylindrical findings of the instrument and those of an experienced practitioner was 0.04 D larger than the average difference seen between two practitioners using subjective techniques. References 1. Guyton DL: Automated clinical refraction , in Duane TD (ed): Clinical Ophthalmology. Hagerstown, Md, Harper & Row Publishers Inc, 1982, vol 1, pp 1-29. 2. Guillon M: Automatic electronic optometers: Review of the clinical literature . Optician 1978;175:12-16. 3. Safir A, Knoll H, Mohrman R: Automatic objective refraction: Report of a clinical trial . Trans Am Acad Ophthalmol Otolaryngol 1970; 74:1266-1275. 4. Safir A, Kulikowski C, Deuschle K: Automatic refraction: How it is done: Some clinical results . Sightsaving 1973;43:137-148. 5. Safir A, Kulikowski C, Crocetti A, et al: A new method of vision care delivery: A pilot study . Health Serv Rep 1973;88:405-415.Crossref 6. Floyd RP, Garcia G: The Ophthalmetron . Arch Ophthalmol 1974;92:10-14.Crossref 7. Bizzell JW, Hendrick JC, Goldberg MF, et al: Clinical evaluation of an infrared refracting instrument . Arch Ophthalmol 1974;92:103-108.Crossref 8. Hill JF: Comparison of computerized refraction with standard refractive technique . Optom Weekly 1973;64:21-24. 9. Dyson C: A clinical study of the Autorefractor, an automatic refracting device . Can J Ophthalmol 1977;12:29-33. 10. Pappas C, Anderson DR, Briese F: Clinical evaluation of the 6600 Autorefractor . Arch Ophthalmol 1978;96:993-996.Crossref 11. Pappas C, Anderson DR, Briese F: Is the Autorefractor reading closest to manifest refraction . Arch Ophthalmol 1978;96:997-998.Crossref 12. Freeman MI: Automated refraction . Contact Intraocul Lens Med J 1981;7:252-257. 13. Sloan P, Poise K: Preliminary clinical evaluation of the Dioptron . Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1974;51:189-197.Crossref 14. Poise K, Kerr K: An automatic objective optometer . Arch Ophthalmol 1975;93:225-231.Crossref 15. Drance SM, Mitchell DWA, Schulzer M: Studies of an automatic refraction machine . Can J Ophthalmol 1975;10:462-468. 16. Mailer CM: Automatic refraction and the private ophthalmologist: Dioptron II compared with subjective examination . Can J Ophthalmol 1978;13:252-257. 17. French C, Wood I: The Dioptron II—in practice . Optician 1981;181:18-30. 18. Ruben ML: Symposium: Automatic refraction, summary . Trans Am Acad Ophthalmol Otolaryngol 1975;79:511-512. 19. Sasieni LS: A guide to automatic refractors . Optician 1982;183:11-18. 20. Miranda MN: Residual accommodation: A comparison between cyclopentolate 1% and a combination of cyclopentolate 1% and tropicamide 1% . Arch Ophthalmol 1972;87:515-517.Crossref 21. Michaels DD: Visual Optics and Refraction , ed 2. St Louis, CV Mosby Co, 1980, pp 377-401. 22. Kratz LD, Flom ML: The Humphrey vision analyzer: Reliability and validity of refractive error measures . Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1977; 54:653-659.Crossref 23. Perrigin J, Perrigin D, Grosvenor T: A comparison of clinical refractive data obtained by three examiners . Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1982;59:515-519.Crossref 24. French CN, Jennings JAM: Errors in subjective refraction . Ophthalmic Optician 1974; 14:797-806. 25. Freeman H, Hood FAB: Comparative analysis of retinoscopic and subjective refraction . Br J Physiol Opt 1955;12:8-36. 26. Sloan AE, Dunphy EB, Emmons WV, et al: A comparison of refraction results on the same individuals . Am J Ophthalmol 1954;37:696-699. 27. Naylor EJ: Astigmatic difference in refractive errors . Br J Ophthalmol 1968;52:422-424.Crossref 28. Duke-Elder S (ed): System of Ophthalmology. St Louis, CV Mosby Co, 1970, vol 5: Duke-Elder S, Abrams D: Ophthalmic Optics and Refraction , p 186. 29. Charman WN, Jennings JAM, Whitefoot H: The refraction of the eye in relation to spherical aberration and pupil size . Br J Physiol Opt 1978;32:78-93.

Journal

Archives of OphthalmologyAmerican Medical Association

Published: Jun 1, 1984

References