Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31857915›Full record

ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2019

Impact of Pupil Diameter on Objective Refraction Determination and Predicted Visual Acuity.

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

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Comparison of Wavefront-optimised Refraction Determined Pre- and Post-cycloplegia in Individuals with Down Syndrome.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Article
  2. Comparing visual acuity and optimized visual image quality for individuals with and without Down syndrome.Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Sources of reduced visual acuity and spectacle treatment options for individuals with Down syndrome: Review of current literature.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2024
    Review
  5. 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
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 1 country.

Heather A AndersonUniversity of Houston College of Optometry, Houston, TX, USA.
Ayeswary RavikumarUniversity of Houston College of Optometry, Houston, TX, USA.
Julia S BenoitUniversity of Houston College of Optometry, Houston, TX, USA.
Jason D MarsackUniversity of Houston College of Optometry, Houston, TX, USA.
University of Houston · US

Funding

Research Programming ModuleP30EY007551 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON · PI VALLABH E DAS · 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
NEI NIH HHS P30 EY007551NEI NIH HHS R01 EY024590
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeObjective refraction based on wavefront aberration measures is a potential tool for patients unable to participate in a subjective refraction, but the selection of a single pupil diameter for determination of the objective refraction may pose challenges. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of pupil diameter on determination of objective refractions for adults with and without Down syndrome (DS) and predicted change in acuity with increasing pupil diameter.

methodsWavefront error was obtained from 27 adults with DS and 24 controls, and metric-optimized refractions were identified for 4- and 6-mm pupil diameters. Total dioptric difference between refractions for the two pupil sizes was calculated, and repeated measures analysis of variance was used to evaluate differences in refractions. Next, five control observers read acuity charts produced to simulate image quality of each subject if the same refraction was applied for both a 4- and 6-mm pupil diameter. A comparison of acuity with performance on a clear chart was used to calculate letters lost for each chart. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to test for differences in letters lost from 4- and 6-mm diameters.

resultsThe dioptric difference between refractions for 4- and 6-mm pupils was significantly greater in subjects with DS (0.51 diopters vs. 0.19 diopters,

conclusionsDifferences between refractions by pupil diameter were similar to the repeatability of subjective refraction. Visual acuity differences were clinically small, suggesting similar performance for objective refractions with increasing pupil diameter. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: This work quantifies the potential impact of pupil diameter change on the performance of wavefront optimized refractions in clinical patients.

Indexed as

Down syndromeimage quality metricsobjective refractionpupil diameterwavefront aberration

Identifiers

PMID31857915
PMCPMC6910609
OpenAlexW2996513959

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.