International Ophthalmology

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 739–746 | Cite as

Comparison of photorefraction, autorefractometry and retinoscopy in children

  • Goktug Demirci
  • Banu Arslan
  • Mustafa Özsütçü
  • Mustafa Eliaçık
  • Gokhan Gulkilik
Original Paper


Photorefractive devices have been evaluated for their effectiveness in detecting anisometropia, hyperopia, myopia, and astigmatism. We investigated the reliability of Plusoptix S08, the newest photoscreener, and Topcon autorefractometer by comparing them with cycloplegic retinoscopy. Plusoptix S08, cycloplegic retinoscopy, and cycloplegic autorefractometer measurements for 235 eyes of 118 children (59 female, 59 male) with a mean age of 4.9 ± 2.6 and median age of 5 years (range 1–12) were conducted. The Plusoptix S08 produced the following mean (±SD) results—spherical 0.27 ± 1.64, cylindrical power −0.81 ± 0.71, axis 89.73 ± 61.18, and spherical equivalent −0.05 ± 1.61. The cycloplegic retinoscopy produced the following mean (±SD) results—spherical 0.12 ± 1.35, cylindrical power −0.89 ± 0.71, axis 92.18 ± 68.39, and spherical equivalent −0.15 ± 1.31. The cycloplegic autorefractometer produced the following mean (±SD) results—spherical 0.16 ± 1.44, cylindrical power −0.88 ± 0.72, axis 90.86 ± 68.21, and spherical equivalent −0.12 ± 1.41. This study has shown that cycloplegic autorefractometer and retinoscopy results are similar and Plusoptix S08 is a very safe, easy-to-use and reliable screening method of refraction, especially for ophthalmologists unskilled in retinoscopy. Plusoptix S08 is a useful tool for estimating refraction in patients for whom conventional autorefraction is not an option.


Amblyopia Photoscreening Plusoptix Refraction 



There is no financial support from any of the organisation.

Conflict of interest

I do not have any financial or propriatory interest in any of the material.


  1. 1.
    Simons K (2005) Amblyopia characterization, treatment, and prophylaxis. Surv Ophthalmol 50(2):123–166 ReviewPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Van Leeuwen R, Eijkemans MJ, Vingerling JR et al (2007) Risk of bilateral vision impairment in individuals with amblyopia: the Rotterdam study. Br J Ophthalmol 91:1450–1451PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Donahue SP, Arnold RW, Ruben JB, AAPOS Vision Screening Committee (2003) Preschool vision screening: what should we be detecting and how should we report it? Uniform guidelines for reporting results of preschool vision screening studies. J AAPOS 7:314–316PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schmidt P, Maguire M, Dobson V, Quinn G, Ciner E, Cyert L, Kulp MT, Moore B, Orel-Bixler D, Redford M, Ying GS, Vision in Preschoolers Study Group (2004) Comparison of preschool vision screening tests as administered by licensed eye care professionals in the vision ın preschoolers study. Ophthalmology 111:637–650PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Erdurmus M, Yagci R, Karadag R, Durmus M (2007) A comparison of photorefraction and retinoscopy in children. J AAPOS 11:606–611PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harbaugh N (2007) Pediatric Eye Evaluations. Preferred Practice Pattern_Guidelines, American Academy of Ophthalmology 2007. Available at
  7. 7.
    Juttmann RT, Rotterdam Amblyopia Screening Effectiveness Study (RAMSES) steering committee (2001) Rotterdam amblyopia screening effectiveness study (RAMSES): compliance and predictive value in the first 2 years. Br J Ophthalmol 85:1332–1335PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Calonge N (2004) Screening for visual ımpairment in children younger than age 5 years: recommendation statement. Ann Fam Med 2:263–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Scheiman MM et al (2005) Randomized trial of treatment of amblyopia in children aged 7–17 years. Arch Ophthalmol 123:437–447PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cotter SA et al (2006) Treatment of anisometropic amblyopia in children with refractive correction. Ophthalmology 113:895–903PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Safir A (1971) Retinoscopy. Int Ophthalmol Clin 11:115–129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zadnik K, Mutti DO, Mitchell GL, Jones LA, Burr D, Moeschberger ML (2004) Normal eye growth in emmetropic schoolchildren. Optom Vis Sci 81:819–828PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bodack MI, Chung I, Krumholtz I (2010) An analysis of vision screening data from New York city public schools. Optometry 81:476–484PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Prabakaran S, Dirani M, Chia A, Gazzard G, Fan Q, Leo SW, Ling Y, Au Eong KG, Wong TY, Saw SM (2009) Cycloplegic refraction in preschool children: comparisons between the hand-held autorefractor, table-mounted autorefractor and retinoscopy. Ophthal Physiol Opt 29:422–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leman R, Armitage MD, Arnold RW (2005) The receiver-operator curve for flip-card surround HOTV in younger school children: validation of a simple flip card for school acuity testing. Am Orthopt J 55:128–135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Matta NS, Singman EL, Silbert DI (2008) Performance of the plusoptix vision screener for the detection of amblyopia risk factors in children. J AAPOS 12:490–492PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schimitzek T, Lagrèze WA (2005) Accuracy of a new photo-refractometer in young and adult patients. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 243:637–645PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wesemann W, Rassow B (1987) Automatic infrared refractors––a comparative study. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 64:627–638PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schimitzek T, Wesemann W (2002) Clinical evaluation of refraction using a handheld wavefront autorefractor in young and adult patients. J Cat Refr Surg 28:1655–1666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wesemann W, Rassow B (1986) Modern instruments for subjective refraction. A comparative study. Ophthalmology 93:52–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wesemann W, Dick B (2000) Accuracy and accommodation capability of a handheld autorefractor. J Cat Refr Surg 26:62–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cronje S, Harris WF (1997) Short-term keratometric variation in the human eye. Optom Vis Sci 74:420–424PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lagrèze W (2010) Vision screening in preschool children. Do the data support universal screening? Dtsch Arztebl Int 107:495–499PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ugurbas S, Alpay A, Kozluca Y, Ugurbas S, Tutar H, Sagdik M (2011) Validity of plusoptiX S04 photoscreener as a vision screening tool in children with intellectual disability. J AAPOS 15(1):e14–e15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Longmuir S, Pfeifer W, Leon A, Olson R, Short L, Scott W (2010) Nine-year results of a volunteer lay network photoscreening program of 147,809 children using a photoscreener in Iowa. Ophthalmology 117:1869–1875PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Leone JF, Mitchell P, Morgan IG, Kifley A, Rose KA (2010) Use of visual acuity to screen for significant refractive errors in adolescents: is it reliable? Arch Ophthalmol 128(7):894–899PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Joish VN, Malone DC, Miller JM (2003) A cost-benefit analysis of vision screening methods for preschoolers and school-age children. J AAPOS 7:283–290PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kirk VG, Clausen MM, Armitage MD, Arnold RW (2008) Preverbal photoscreening for amblyogenic factors and outcomes in amblyopia treatment: early objective screening and visual acuities. Arch Ophthalmol 126:489–492PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tong PY, Bassin RE, Enke-Miyazaki E et al (2000) Screening for amblyopia in preverbal children with photoscreening photographs: II. Sensitivity and specificity of the MTI photoscreener. Ophthalmology 107:1623–1629PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ehrt O (2012) Which Amblyopes do we miss with non-cycloplegic Refraction Screening? The 35th Meeting of the European Strabismological Association. 2–5, Bucharest, Romania. Free paperGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Matta NS, Singman EL, McCarus C, Matta E, Silbert DI (2010) Screening for amblyogenic risk factors using the PlusoptiX S04 photoscreener on the indigent population of Honduras. Ophthalmology 117:1848–1850PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Goktug Demirci
    • 1
  • Banu Arslan
    • 1
  • Mustafa Özsütçü
    • 1
  • Mustafa Eliaçık
    • 1
  • Gokhan Gulkilik
    • 1
  1. 1.Ophthalmology Department of Medipol University HospitalIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations