ArticleInternational ophthalmology2019
Comparison of the PlusOptix S09 and Spot Vision photorefractor to cycloretinoscopy.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Parental Compliance with Preschool Vision Screening Test.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- The Performance of Spot Photoscreener in 6 to 10 Weeks Infants in China: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Comparison of the PlusoptiX A16 and vision screener V100.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Associations between anthropometric indicators and refraction in school-age children during the post-COVID-19 era.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Comparison of Adult Refractive Disorder Measurements Using HandyRef-K, Retinomax, Plusoptix, and Table-top Autorefractometer Devices.Beyoglu eye journal · 2021Article
- Prevalence of anisometropia in children and adolescents.F1000Research · 2021Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to compare refraction measurements for children with the PlusOptix S09 and Spot Vision with cycloplegic retinoscopy.
methodsOne hundred thirty-six eyes of 68 children (26 boys and 42 girls) were evaluated prospectively. The subjects were separated into two groups. Group 1 comprised the subjects age between 5 and 9 years. Group 2 comprised the subjects age between 10 and 18 years. Photorefraction with PlusOptix S09, photorefraction with Spot Vision and cycloplegic retinoscopy were performed in each patient. Spherical equivalents, spherical power, cylindrical power and axis values were compared between three methods.
resultsThe mean age of the patients was 7.12 ± 1.5 years in group 1 and 12.24 ± 1.8 years in group 2. Spherical equivalent and spherical power measured with PlusOptix S09 were statistically smaller than measured with cycloplegic retinoscopy for group 1 (p = 0.001, p = 0.001) and for group 2 (p = 0.000, p = 0.000). The mean cylindrical power measured with PlusOptix S09 was not statistically different compared to cycloplegic retinoscopy for both groups (p = 0.314, p = 0.05). Spherical equivalents measured with Spot Vision were statistically smaller than measured with cycloplegic retinoscopy for both groups (p = 0.000, p = 0.012). Spherical power measured with Spot Vision was statistically smaller than measured with cycloplegic retinoscopy for group 1 (p = 0.000), but the difference was not statistically significant for group 2 (p = 0.084). The mean cylindrical power measured with Spot Vision was statistically higher than cycloplegic retinoscopy for both groups (p = 0.000, p = 0.012).
conclusionsPlusOptix S09 and Spot Vision devices give acceptable results for screening, but prescription of spectacles should not be made according to PlusOptix S09 or Spot Vision devices alone.
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.