Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22198796›Full record

ArticleOptometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry2012

Objective and subjective refractive error measurements in monkeys.

Li-Fang Hung, Ramkumar Ramamirtham, Janice M Wensveen, Ronald S Harwerth, Earl L Smith

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Variant myopia: A new presentation?Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2018
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Effects of local myopic defocus on refractive development in monkeys.Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry · 2013
    Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Li-Fang HungCollege of Optometry, University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77204-2020, USA.
Ramkumar Ramamirtham
Janice M Wensveen
Ronald S Harwerth
Earl L Smith
University of Houston · USFundação Armando Alvares Penteado · BR

Funding

Research Programming ModuleP30EY007551 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON · PI VALLABH E DAS · 1988 to 2026
$16.4M
Optically Induced AnisometropiasR01EY003611 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON · PI Lisa A Ostrin · 1985 to 2026
$11.1M
Behavioral Measures of VisionR01EY001139 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON · PI HARWERTH, RONALD S · 1985 to 2016
$5.2M
High Field MRI Scanner for Animal StudiesS10RR017205 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI NARAYANA, PONNADA A · 2003 to 2003
$1.6M
NCRR NIH HHS RR-17,205NEI NIH HHS EY-03,611NEI NIH HHS EY-07,551NEI NIH HHS P30 EY007551NEI NIH HHS R01 EY001139NEI NIH HHS R01 EY003611
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo better understand the functional significance of refractive-error measures obtained using common objective methods in laboratory animals, we compared objective and subjective measures of refractive error in adolescent rhesus monkeys.

methodsThe subjects were 20 adolescent monkeys. Spherical-equivalent spectacle-plane refractive corrections were measured by retinoscopy and autorefraction while the animals were cyclopleged and anesthetized. The eye's axial dimensions were measured by A-Scan ultrasonography. Subjective measures of the eye's refractive state, with and without cycloplegia, were obtained using psychophysical methods. Specifically, we measured spatial contrast sensitivity as a function of spectacle lens power for relatively high spatial frequency gratings. The lens power that produced the highest contrast sensitivity was taken as the subjective refraction.

resultsRetinoscopy and autorefraction consistently yielded higher amounts of hyperopia relative to subjective measurements obtained with or without cycloplegia. The subjective refractions were not affected by cycloplegia and on average were 1.42 ± 0.61 D and 1.24 ± 0.62 D less hyperopic than the retinoscopy and autorefraction measurements, respectively. Repeating the retinoscopy and subjective measurements through 3 mm artificial pupils produced similar differences.

conclusionsThe results show that commonly used objective methods for assessing refractive errors in monkeys significantly overestimate the degree of hyperopia. It is likely that multiple factors contributed to the hyperopic bias associated with these objective measurements. However, the magnitude of the hyperopic bias was in general agreement with the "small-eye artifact" of retinoscopy.

Indexed as

Refraction, OcularAnimalsContrast SensitivityDisease Models, AnimalLens, CrystallineMacaca mulattaRefractive ErrorsRetinoscopyRetrospective StudiesUltrasonographyVision Tests

Identifiers

PMID22198796
PMCPMC3331912
OpenAlexW2032438409

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.