HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Williams, C. Articles by Sparrow, J. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Williams, C. Articles by Sparrow, J. M.

Screening for Refractive Errors with the Topcon PR2000 Pediatric Refractometer

¹ From the Bristol Eye Hospital; and the ³ Department of Ophthalmology, University of Bristol, United Kingdom; and the ² School of Health Policy and Practice, University of East Anglia, United Kingdom.

PURPOSE. The PR2000 (Topcon, Tokyo, Japan) is a photorefractor that has been used in a population study comparing different methods of screening preschool children. The present study was conducted to determine the accuracy of the device in a largely clinical population.

METHODS. Two hundred twenty-two children less than 8 years of age were included. All children were examined by an orthoptist using the PR2000 without inducing cycloplegia. All children then underwent retinoscopy with cycloplegia by an examiner who was unaware of the results from the PR2000 examination.

RESULTS. The PR2000 gave a numerical reading for 90% of the children’s right eyes and the message "Out of range" for a further 5%. The readings underestimated the amount of hypermetropic or astigmatic refractive error found on retinoscopy by an amount proportional to the magnitude of the refractive error. Agreement with retinoscopy for the axis of astigmatism more than 0.75 D was moderately good (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.63). The PR2000 was more useful as a screener, especially for anisometropia for which it was 91% sensitive and 92% specific. The repeatability was good for sphere (ICC = 0.74), less so for astigmatism (ICC = 0.59), and better than the optometrist for anisometropia (ICC = 0.38). The presence of nonrefractive diagnoses and the age of the children examined made little difference in the screening results.

CONCLUSIONS. The PR2000 underestimated hypermetropic refractive errors when used without cycloplegia. However, it was at least as good a screening device as other similar instruments, especially when judged by its ability to detect anisometropia and the repeatability of the results.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				O A Hunt, J S Wolffsohn, and B Gilmartin Evaluation of the measurement of refractive error by the PowerRefractor: a remote, continuous and binocular measurement system of oculomotor function Br. J. Ophthalmol., December 1, 2003; 87(12): 1504 - 1508. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C Williams, K Northstone, R A Harrad, J M Sparrow, I Harvey, and ALSPAC Study Team Amblyopia treatment outcomes after screening before or at age 3 years: follow up from randomised trial BMJ, June 29, 2002; 324(7353): 1549 - 1549. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J.-C. Barry and H.-H. Konig Non-cycloplegic screening for amblyopia via refractive findings with the Nikon Retinomax hand held autorefractor in 3 year old kindergarten children Br. J. Ophthalmol., October 1, 2001; 85(10): 1179 - 1182. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]