ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2017
Suitability of open-field autorefractors as pupillometers and instrument design effects.
Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Objective assessment of accommodation with an accommodative intraocular lens: Development of methodology and case report.Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik · 2026Article
- Accommodative responses under various viewing conditions in surgical patients with intermittent exotropia: an institutional, retrospective study.BMC ophthalmology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo determine the agreement and repeatability of the pupil measurement obtained with VIP-200 (Neuroptics), PowerRef II (Plusoptix), WAM-5500 (Grand Seiko) and study the effects of instrument design on pupillometry.
methodsForty patients were measured twice in low, mid and high mesopic. Repeatability was analyzed with the within-subject standard deviation (Sw) and paired
resultsThe mean difference (±standard deviation) between test-retest for low, mid and high mesopic conditions were, respectively: -0.09 (±0.16), -0.05 (±0.18) and -0.08 (±0.23) mm for Neuroptics, -0.05 (±0.17), -0.12 (±0.23) and -0.17 (±0.34) mm for WAM-5500, -0.04 (±0.27), -0.13 (±0.37) and -0.11 (±0.28) mm for PowerRef II. Regarding agreement with Neuroptics, the mean difference for low, mid and high mesopic conditions were, respectively: -0.48 (±0.35), -0.83 (±0.52) and -0.38 (±0.56) mm for WAM-5500, -0.28 (±0.56), -0.70 (±0.55) and -0.61 (±0.54) mm for PowerRef II. The mean difference of binocular minus monocular pupil measurements was: -0.83 (±0.87) mm; and with proximity cues minus without proximity cues was: -0.30 (±0.77) mm.
conclusionAll the instruments show similar repeat-ability. In all illumination conditions, agreement of Neuroptics with WAM-5500 and PowerRef II is not good enough, which can be partially induced due to their open field design.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.