ArticleJournal of optometry
Open versus closed view autorefraction in young adults.
Article in Journal of optometry. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of fogging lenses on accommodation using an open-view portable wavefront autorefractor.Journal of optometry · 2026Article
- Feasibility, agreement, and time savings of PHANTOM open-field binocular integrated refraction versus conventional clinical refraction in healthy young adults.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Alterations in Peripheral Refraction are Most Significant Just Before the Onset of Myopia: Evidence from Multispectral Refraction Topography.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2025Article
- Comparing Close-Field and Open-Field Autorefractometry and Subjective Refraction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Retinoscopes: Past and present.World journal of methodology · 2024Article
- One-year results for myopia control of orthokeratology with different back optic zone diameters: a randomized trial using a novel multispectral-based topographer.International journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Clinical evaluation of autorefraction and subjective refraction with and without cycloplegia in Chinese school-aged children: a cross-sectional study.Translational pediatrics · 2022Article
- Comparison of the Amplitude of Accommodation Measured Using a New-Generation Closed-Field Autorefractor with Conventional Subjective Methods.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Agreement and Repeatability of Central and Peripheral Refraction by One Novel Multispectral-Based Refractor.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWhile there are numerous studies comparing open-view autorefractors to subjective refraction or other open-view autorefractors, most studies between closed and open-view autorefraction tend to focus on children rather than young adults. The aim of this study was to determine the concordance in non-cycloplegic refractive error between two modern objective autorefractors: the closed-view monocular Topcon TRK-2P and the binocular open-view Grand Seiko WR-5500.
methodsFifty young adults aged 20-29 years (mean age 22 ± 1.6 years) underwent non-cycloplegic autorefraction using the Grand Seiko WAM-5500 (open view) and Topcon TRK-2P (closed-view) autorefractors on both eyes. Findings were expressed as the isolated spherical component and were also converted from clinical to vector notation: Mean Spherical Error (MSE) and the astigmatic components J0 and J45.
resultsMean MSE ± SD was -1.00 ± 2.40D for the Grand Seiko WAM-5500 compared to -1.23 ± 2.29D for the Topcon TRK-2P. Up to seventy-six percent of the cohort had mean spherical errors from the Topcon TRK-2P which fell within ±0.50D of the Grand Seiko reading and 58% fell within ±0.25D. Mean differences between the two instruments were statistically significant for all components (J0, spherical, and MSE) (p < 0.01), except J45 (p > 0.05).
conclusionsThe differences in non-cycloplegic MSE between these two instruments are small, but statistically significant. From a clinical perspective the Topcon TRK-2P may serve as a useful starting point for subjective refraction, but additional work is needed to help further minimise differences between the instruments.
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.