ArticleOptometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry2018
Accuracy of a Smartphone-based Autorefractor Compared with Criterion-standard Refraction.
Article in Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deep learning-empowered low-cost portable automated refraction system: A solution to the inadequate effective correction rate of refractive errors in resource-limited areas.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025Trial
- Ametropia detection using a novel, compact wavefront autorefractor.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2024Article
- Multivariate analysis of repeatability for the Near Eye Tool for Refractive Assessment (NETRA).BMJ open ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Development and Testing of a Compact Autorefractor Based on Double-Pass Imaging.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Validation of a simple-to-use, affordable, portable, wavefront aberrometry-based auto refractometer in the adult population: A prospective study.BMC ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Comparison of the Near Eye Tool for Refractive Assessment (NETRA) and non-cycloplegic subjective refraction.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Could telehealth help eye care practitioners adapt contact lens services during the COVID-19 pandemic?Contact lens & anterior eye : the journal of the British Contact Lens Association · 2020Article
- Screening for Stereopsis of Children Using an Autostereoscopic Smartphone.Journal of ophthalmology · 2019Article
- Portable hardware & software technologies for addressing ophthalmic health disparities: A systematic review.Digital healthReview
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
significanceUncorrected refractive error is a prevalent problem throughout the world especially among the low-income population who have limited access to professional eye care and cannot afford eyeglasses. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and usability of a low-cost, portable, smartphone-based autorefractor (Netra, EyeNetra Inc., Somerville, MA) in adults.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted to compare the portable refractor with subjective (manifest and cycloplegic) refraction for sequential adult participants with best-corrected visual acuity of 20/40 or greater. For each method of refraction, the spherical equivalent was calculated. Differences between methods were tested with linear mixed regression models. A validated usability questionnaire was administered regarding ease of use (100-point scale, higher scores better) for the portable autorefractor.
resultsEighty-seven subjects (152 eyes) were studied (age range, 20 to 90 years; mean ± standard deviation, 51.9 ± 18.3 years). Mean spherical equivalent by the portable device was -2.76 D (range, -14.75 to 3.63 D) compared with -2.49 D (range, -15.25 to 4.25 D) by manifest refraction. The mean relative difference in spherical equivalent between methods was -0.27 D (P = .001, significantly different than 0 D). The mean absolute difference between methods was 0.69 D (P < .001, significantly different than 0.5-D absolute difference). Similar results were found when comparing spherical equivalent between Netra and cycloplegic refraction methods. Subjects reported average ease of use for the Netra of 75.4 ± 19.8.
conclusionsThe portable autorefractor had small but clinically significant differences from subjective refraction. The device's scores on the usability scale indicate good overall patient acceptance. The device may be valuable for use where there is limited access to a trained refractionist.
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.