You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 102 No. 6, June 1984 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  CLINICAL SCIENCES
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (11)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Clinical Evaluation of the Humphrey Automatic Refractor

Edward K. Wong, Jr, MD; V. Michael Patella, OD; Mary V. Pratt, MD; Steven W. Myers, OD; Ronald N. Gaster, MD; Irving H. Leopold, MD, DSc

Arch Ophthalmol. 1984;102(6):870-875.


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.



Author Affiliations

From the Department of Ophthalmology, University of California at Irvine (Drs Wong, Pratt, Gaster, and Leopold), and the Clinical Research Department, Humphrey Instruments, Inc, San Leandro, Calif (Drs Patella and Myers).


Footnotes

Accepted for publication Aug 31, 1983.

Reprint requests to Department of Ophthalmology, University of California at Irvine Medical Center, 101 City Dr S, Orange, CA 92668 (Dr Wong).

This study was supported in part by Humphrey Instruments, Inc, San Leandro, Calif.

Susan Arias, Efraim Duzman, MD, Scott Grant, MD, LaVon Hall, MS, David Kazan, MD, Thomas S. Merrill, Leslie Moser, Marjorie A. Mosier, MD, Christine Nordeen Ritter, MS, Gordon L. Schooley, PhD, Doris V. Schoon, MD, and Barry Smith, MD, assisted in this investigation. The statistical review was done by Howard Tucker, PhD.



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1984 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.