Related Experiment Videos
A comparison of autorefractor performance
Konrad Pesudovs1, Harrison Scott Weisinger
1Department of Ophthalmology, Flinders Medical Centre, Flinders University, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia.
Summary
This study compared subjective refraction with two autorefractors, finding both Nidek ARK-700A and Topcon KR-8000 show excellent agreement. While clinically equivalent for spherical error, the Nidek may offer a slight advantage in avoiding large astigmatic errors.
Area of Science:
- Ophthalmology
- Optometry
- Vision Science
Background:
- Accurate refractive error measurement is crucial for vision correction.
- Autorefractors are widely used tools for initial refractive assessment.
- Comparing autorefractor performance against subjective refraction is essential for clinical practice.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the agreement between subjective refraction and autorefraction using Nidek ARK-700A and Topcon KR-8000 devices.
- To determine the clinical equivalence of two commercially available autorefractors compared to subjective refraction.
Main Methods:
- A prospective study involving 190 subjects.
- Comparison of refractions using spherical equivalent and astigmatic vector difference.
- Statistical analysis included Bland-Altman limits of agreement and median/95th percentile differences.
Main Results:
- Both autorefractors demonstrated excellent agreement with subjective refraction.
- Spherical equivalent showed statistically significant mean differences but clinically equivalent limits of agreement.
- The Nidek ARK-700A showed a lower frequency of large astigmatic errors compared to the Topcon KR-8000.
Conclusions:
- Both Nidek ARK-700A and Topcon KR-8000 autorefractors are clinically equivalent to subjective refraction for spherical error.
- The Nidek ARK-700A appears to have a small advantage in minimizing large astigmatic errors.
- Autorefraction is a reliable method for initial refractive assessment in optometric and ophthalmologic practice.