Clinical Evaluation of an Infrared Refracting Instrument

James W. Bizzell, John C. Hendricks, Morton F. Goldberg, Minu K. Patel, Glenn F. Robbins

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

9 Scopus citations


Refractive errors of 567 eyes (286 patients), obtained by independent refractionists using retinoscopic and subjective techniques, were compared with those obtained by a trained technician operating the Ophthalmetron. The Ophthalmetron was incapable of producing an interpretable tracing in 26% of eyes, primarily because of poor fixation by the patients. The spherical power agreed within ± 0.5 diopter by the two objective methods in 52.6% of eyes. The cylindrical power agreed within ± 0.5 D by the two objective methods in 71.5% of eyes. The cylindrical axis measured by the two objective methods was within five degrees in 40% of eyes. The principal limitations of the infrared refracting instrument are related to (1) the lack of cooperation in very young and very old individuals; (2) disease states limiting the transparency of the ocular media, such as cataracts; and (3) aphakia.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)103-108
Number of pages6
JournalArchives of ophthalmology
Issue number2
StatePublished - Aug 1974
Externally publishedYes


  • Infrared refracting device
  • Ophthalmetron
  • retinoscopy
  • subjective refraction

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology


Dive into the research topics of 'Clinical Evaluation of an Infrared Refracting Instrument'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this