Purpose: This study was designed to determine if lens prescription can be based solely on automated objective refraction. Methods: All patients were interviewed and underwent an ophthalmologic examination including clinical refraction with classical non-automated objective and subjective procedures (gold standard). Afterwards the automated objective refraction was performed using the automatic keratorefractor TOPCON 3000. Results: 1,001 eyes of 504 patients were studied. 45.2% were male patients and the mean age was 36.6 years. There was an overall concordance between clinical refraction and the automated objective refraction in 66.7% of the patients. The concordance of a spherical value, not considering variations of -0.50 to +0.50 SD was, approximately 90%. In simple hyperopic/myopic astigmatic eyes the concordance was 27.6%, in eyes with compound hyperopic/myopic astigmatism the concordance was 97.7%. Cycloplegia did not significantly affect this concordance. There was no significant difference regarding the axis of astigmatic eyes when using both techniques. Conclusion: Automated objective refraction is an useful tool in clinical refraction but clinical data should also be considered and the final lens prescription should never be based solely on the automated examination.
Contact lenses; Refractive errors; Ocular refraction; Refractometry
