Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28288016›Full record

ArticleOptometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry2017

Variability in Objective Refraction for Persons with Down Syndrome.

Jason D Marsack, Ayeswarya Ravikumar, Julia S Benoit, Heather A Anderson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Dioptric differences between clinically determined and metric-optimised refractions for adults with Down syndrome.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Jason D Marsack*PhD, FAAO †PhD ‡OD, PhD, FAAO University of Houston College of Optometry, Houston, Texas (all authors); and Texas Institute for Measurement, Evaluation and Statistics, University of Houston, Houston, Texas (JSB).
Ayeswarya Ravikumar
Julia S Benoit
Heather A Anderson
University of Houston · US

Funding

Research Programming ModuleP30EY007551 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON · PI LAURA J. FRISHMAN · 1988 to 2026
$16.4M
Identification of optimum spectacle prescriptions for patients with Down syndromeR01EY024590 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON · PI ANDERSON, HEATHER ANNE · 2014 to 2025
$3.8M
The Role of Galectins in Corneal Hem- and LymphangiogenesisR01EY007088 · NEI · TUFTS UNIVERSITY BOSTON · PI PANJWANI, NOORJAHAN · 1987 to 2015
$3.6M
Optical aberration and visual performance in highly aberrated eyesR01EY019105 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON · PI APPLEGATE, RAYMOND A, MARSACK, JASON D · 2009 to 2018
$2.9M
SHORT TERM TRAINING--STUDENTS IN HEALTH PROFESSIONST35EY007088 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI FRISHMAN, LAURA J. · 1985 to 2025
$2.3M
FMRI STUDIES;VISUAL EXPERIENCE AND NEURONAL CHANGESF32EY007088 · NEI · MAX PLANCK INST/BIOLOGICAL CYBERNETICS · PI TOLIAS, ANDREAS SAVAS · 2000 to 2003
$116k
NEI NIH HHS F32 EY007088NEI NIH HHS P30 EY007551NEI NIH HHS R01 EY007088NEI NIH HHS R01 EY019105NEI NIH HHS R01 EY024590NEI NIH HHS T35 EY007088
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDown syndrome (DS) is associated with ocular and cognitive sequelae, which both have the potential to influence clinical measures of refractive error. This study compares variability of autorefraction among subjects with and without DS.

methodsGrand Seiko autorefraction was performed on 139 subjects with DS (age: 8-55, mean: 25 ± 9 yrs) and 138 controls (age: 7-59, mean: 25 ± 10 yrs). Subjects with three refraction measures per eye (DS: 113, control: 136) were included for analysis. Each refraction was converted to power vector notation (M, J0, J45) and a difference in each component (ΔM, ΔJ0, ΔJ45) was calculated for each refraction pairing. From these quantities, average dioptric strength ((Equation is included in full-text article.): square root of the sum of the squares of M, J0, and J45) and average dioptric difference ((Equation is included in full-text article.): square root of the sum of the squares of ΔM, ΔJ0, and ΔJ45) were calculated.

resultsThe DS group exhibited a greater median (Equation is included in full-text article.)(1Q: 1.38D M: 2.38D 3Q: 3.41D) than control eyes (1Q: 0.47D M: 0.96D 3Q: 2.75D) (P < .001). Likewise, the DS group exhibited a greater median (Equation is included in full-text article.)in refraction (1Q: 0.27D M: 0.42D 3Q: 0.78D) than control eyes (1Q: 0.11D M: 0.15D 3Q: 0.23D) (P < .001) with 97.1% of control eyes exhibiting (Equation is included in full-text article.)≤0.50D, compared to 59.3% of DS eyes. An effect of (Equation is included in full-text article.)on (Equation is included in full-text article.)was not detected (P = .3009) nor was a significant interaction between (Equation is included in full-text article.)and group detected (P = .49).

conclusionsIn the current study, comparing three autorefraction readings, median total dioptric difference with autorefraction in DS was 2.8 times the levels observed in controls, indicating greater potential uncertainty in objective measures of refraction for this population. The analysis demonstrates that J45 is highly contributory to the observed variability.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultChildDown SyndromeFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRefraction, OcularRefractive ErrorsVision Tests

Identifiers

PMID28288016
PMCPMC5436988
OpenAlexW2592669195

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.