Are the results of handheld auto-refractometer as valid as the result of table-mounted refractometer?

Abstract

Purpose: To determine the agreement of table-mounted and handheld auto-refractometers and to evaluate the effect of age and different types of refractive errors on this comparison. Methods: In this cross-sectional study conducted in 2015 using multi-stage cluster sampling, two underserved villages were selected randomly in the north and southwest of Iran. All the selected participants underwent optometric and ophthalmic examinations. Refraction was measured using handheld and table-mounted auto-refractometers in 652 subjects. Results: The mean age of the subjects was 32.7 ± 18.72 years, and 58.3% of them were female. A significant difference was observed in the results of sphere, spherical equivalent (SE), and J45 vector between the two devices (P < 0.012), but there was no significant difference in J0 vector. There was a significant difference in the results of sphere between the two devices in all age groups under 50 years (P = 0.005), but there was no difference in age groups above 50 years. Correlation coefficients of the two devices were 0.989, 0.986, 0.908, and 0.951 for the results of sphere, SE, J0 vector, and J45 vector, respectively (P < 0.0001). The 95% limit of agreement (LOA) of the two devices was −0.31 to +0.53 for sphere, −0.27 to +0.63 for SE, −0.27 to +0.27 for J0 vector, and −0.16 to −0.17 for J45 vector. Conclusions: According to our findings, the spherical error and cylindrical power measurements of the two devices have a significant correlation. Although there is a significant difference in the mean values between the two devices, this difference may be considered clinically insignificant, and considering the narrow 95% LOA between the two devices, the results may be used interchangeably. Keywords: Handheld auto-refractometer, Table-mounted auto-refractometer, Refraction, Astigmatism