Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32153328›Full record

ArticleMiddle East African journal of ophthalmology

Efficacy of Brückner's Test for Screening of Refractive Errors by Non-ophthalmologist Versus Ophthalmologist: A Comparative Study.

A R Rajalakshmi, M Rajeshwari

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Middle East African journal of ophthalmology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 41% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

A R RajalakshmiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute, Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University), Puducherry, India.
M RajeshwariDepartment of Ophthalmology, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute, Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University), Puducherry, India.
Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of Brückner's test as a screening tool for identifying refractive errors by a non-ophthalmologist and to assess the inter-observer variation. SUBJECTS AND

methodsThis was a quasi-experimental study conducted at a tertiary care medical college hospital. Brückner's test was performed by a non-ophthalmologist followed by an ophthalmologist. The results were confirmed by cycloplegic refraction.

resultsThe study included 75 children (31 males and 44 females) with a mean age of 13.3 ± 1.2 years. The results of Brückner's test by both non-ophthalmologist and ophthalmologist showed good sensitivity and specificity when compared with cycloplegic refraction. There was a good strength of agreement between the observations of non-ophthalmologist and ophthalmologist.

conclusionBrückner's test is simple, quick, reliable, and easy to administer on children of all age groups that can provide information about the presence of refractive errors by using a coaxial light source such as direct ophthalmoscope. The application of this test by training primary care providers would be of immense value in the early identification of refractive errors.

Indexed as

AdolescentChildDiagnostic Techniques, OphthalmologicalFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningRefractive ErrorsRisk AssessmentVision TestsBrückner's testefficacynon-ophthalmologistrefractionrefractive errorscreening

Identifiers

PMID32153328
PMCPMC7034155
OpenAlexW3003221337

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.