Back to Journals » Clinical Ophthalmology » Volume 15

Hand-Held Nidek versus Table-Mounted Huvitz Autorefractors and Their Agreement with Subjective Refraction in Adults

Authors Sayed KM, Alsmman AH, Mostafa EM

Received 30 May 2020

Accepted for publication 17 March 2021

Published 1 April 2021 Volume 2021:15 Pages 1391—1401

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S263667

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single anonymous peer review

Peer reviewer comments 3

Editor who approved publication: Dr Scott Fraser


Khulood Muhammad Sayed, Alahmady Hammad Alsmman, Engy Mohammed Mostafa

The Department of Ophthalmology, Sohag Faculty of Medicine, Sohag University, Sohag, Egypt

Correspondence: Alahmady Hammad Alsmman
The Department of Ophthalmology, Sohag Faculty of Medicine, Sohag University, Sohag, 82524, Egypt
Tel +20-1111-428-635
Email [email protected]

Objective: To compare the agreement between commercially available table mounted and a hand-held autorefractors and their agreement with subjective refraction. The effect of different body position with the handheld autorefractometer was also evaluated.
Methods: A prospective study was performed on 253 healthy eyes. Refraction was acquired by a table-mounted Huvitz and hand-held Nidek autorefractometer, subjective refraction was acquired. Refractive errors were compared in terms of spherical equivalent (SE), cylinder power, and the J0 and J45. The level of agreement was evaluated by Bland–Altman plots.
Results: There was a significant difference in SE measurements between both devices and between them and subjective refraction (P=0.00). The Huvitz SE readings tended to be less myopic. However, limits of agreement (LOA) for SE were narrowest for Nidek sitting vs supine followed by Huvitz vs subjective SE refraction. The LOA for SE for Nidek sitting vs subjective SE were of wider range. For cylinder values, LOA were similar for all devices and positions and between them and subjective cylinder refraction.
Conclusion: Table mounted Huvitz and Nidek portable autorefractor cannot be used interchangeably in clinical practice except for estimation of the cylinder power. No difference in refraction between sitting and supine positions for portable Nidek autorefractor but with caution in cylinder axis. High agreement was achieved between subjective refraction and Huvitz readings but not with Nidek hand-held autorefractor. A highly reliable spectacle prescription could be done based on Huvitz readings. Both devices and positions could be used interchangeably in estimation of K-readings.

Keywords: Huvitz, Nidek, portable, autorefractometer, subjective refraction

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]