Purpose. The purpose of this article was to compare the Retinomax with the table-mounted autorefractor and subjective refraction in Singapore adults.
Methods. Adults (n = 100) attending a tertiary eye hospital clinic were examined by an optometrist. First, subjective refraction testing was performed using a trial lens set, followed by handheld autorefractor tests using the Nikon Retinomax and the table-mounted autorefractor (Topcon RM8000B). Spherical equivalent and vector components of astigmatism were analyzed: J0 (Cartesian astigmatism) and J45 (oblique astigmatism).
Results. The Retinomax autorefractor readings (mean = −4.69 D) were more minus compared with the table-mounted autorefractor (mean = −4.05 D) and subjective refraction (mean = −3.90 D). There were significant differences in J0 and J45 for comparisons between subjective refraction and Retinomax autorefraction, and table-mounted autorefraction and Retinomax autorefraction.
Conclusion. The Retinomax autorefractor measures were more minus compared with the table-mounted autorefractor and subjective refraction. The Retinomax autorefractor is not recommended for research purposes, unless in remote inaccessible areas where a portable instrument is necessary and cycloplegia is not possible.