Reliability and reproducibility of a handheld videorefractor

Ogbuehi, Kelechi, Almalki, Wael, Alqarni, Ahmed, & Osuagwu, Uchechukwu L. (2015) Reliability and reproducibility of a handheld videorefractor. Optometry & Vision Science, 92(5), pp. 632-641.

View at publisher



To assess the performance of the 2Win eccentric videorefractor in relation to subjective refraction and table-mounted autorefraction.


Eighty-six eyes of 86 adults (46 male and 40 female subjects) aged between 20 and 25 years were examined. Subjective refraction and autorefraction using the table-mounted Topcon KR8800 and the handheld 2Win videorefractor were carried out in a randomized fashion by three different masked examiners. Measurements were repeated about 1 week after to assess instrument reproducibility, and the intertest variability was compared between techniques. Agreement of the 2Win videorefractor with subjective refraction and autorefraction was assessed for sphere and for cylindrical vectors at 0 degrees (J0) and 45 degrees (J45).


Reproducibility coefficients for sphere values measured by subjective refraction, Topcon KR8800, and 2Win (±0.42, ±0.70, and ±1.18, respectively) were better than their corresponding J0 (±1.0, ±0.85, and ±1.66) and J45 (±1.01, ±0.87, and ±1.31) vector components. The Topcon KR8800 showed the most reproducible values for mean spherical equivalent refraction and the J0 and J45 vector components, whereas reproducibility of spherical component was best for subjective refraction. The 2Win videorefractor measurements were the least reproducible for all measures. All refractive components measured by the 2Win videorefractor did not differ significantly from those of subjective refraction, in both sessions (p > 0.05). The Topcon KR8800 autorefractometer and the 2Win videorefractor measured significantly more positive spheres and mean spherical equivalent refraction (p < 0.0001), but the J0 and J45 vector components were similar (p > 0.05), in both sessions.


The 2Win videorefractor compares well, on average, with subjective refraction. The reproducibility values for the 2Win videorefractor were considerably worse than either subjective refraction or autorefraction. The wide limits of reproducibility of the 2Win videorefractor probably limit its usefulness as a primary screening device.

Impact and interest:

2 citations in Scopus
Search Google Scholar™
1 citations in Web of Science®

Citation counts are sourced monthly from Scopus and Web of Science® citation databases.

These databases contain citations from different subsets of available publications and different time periods and thus the citation count from each is usually different. Some works are not in either database and no count is displayed. Scopus includes citations from articles published in 1996 onwards, and Web of Science® generally from 1980 onwards.

Citations counts from the Google Scholar™ indexing service can be viewed at the linked Google Scholar™ search.

Full-text downloads:

19 since deposited on 16 Apr 2015
12 in the past twelve months

Full-text downloads displays the total number of times this work’s files (e.g., a PDF) have been downloaded from QUT ePrints as well as the number of downloads in the previous 365 days. The count includes downloads for all files if a work has more than one.

ID Code: 83594
Item Type: Journal Article
Refereed: Yes
Keywords: Subjective refraction, Autorefraction, 2Win Videorefractor, Vision screening, Refarctive error
DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000000566
ISSN: 1538-9235
Divisions: Current > QUT Faculties and Divisions > Faculty of Health
Current > Institutes > Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation
Current > Schools > School of Optometry & Vision Science
Copyright Owner: Copyright 2015 American Academy of Optometry
Deposited On: 16 Apr 2015 01:02
Last Modified: 12 May 2016 02:04

Export: EndNote | Dublin Core | BibTeX

Repository Staff Only: item control page