ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2020
Effect of Instrument Design and Technique on the Precision and Accuracy of Objective Refraction Measurement.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Reliability and Acceptability of RDx-Based Tele-Controlled Subjective Refraction Compared with Traditional Subjective Refraction.Translational vision science & technology · 2022Trial
- Improving the estimation of the spherical equivalent subjective refraction using objective information on accommodation.Biomedical optics express · 2025Article
- Ametropia detection using a novel, compact wavefront autorefractor.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2024Article
- Two different autorefractors for vision screening in children and adolescents.International journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Special Issue on Ophthalmic Optics and Visual Function.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Effect of six different autorefractor designs on the precision and accuracy of refractive error measurement.PloS one · 2022Article
- Does the Accuracy and Repeatability of Refractive Error Estimates Depend on the Measurement Principle of Autorefractors?Translational vision science & technology · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the precision and accuracy of objective refraction measurement obtained with combinations of instrument design and technique. We also compared the performance of the instruments with subjective refraction measurements. Method and analysis: The objective refraction was measured in 71 subjects with three autorefractometers that have different designs and measurement principles (binocular with fogging, binocular without fogging, and monocular with fogging). Repeatability and reproducibility metrics were calculated for the objective refraction measurements. The agreement of the objective refraction measurements between the three instruments and the agreement with the subjective refraction measurements were evaluated.
resultsAll three autorefractometers had repeatability and reproducibility limits smaller than 0.70D. The smallest difference (0.10D) in the spherical equivalent was seen between the two binocular instruments. Compared with the subjective refraction, the binocular without fogging technique had the smallest mean difference in spherical equivalent (<0.20D) whereas the binocular fogging technique had the smallest limit of agreement interval (1.00D). For all comparisons, the mean difference and limit of agreement interval for the cylindrical components were lower than 0.10D and 0.75D, respectively.
conclusionAll three instruments evaluated had good repeatability and reproducibility. The binocular fogging technique provided the best agreement with subjective refraction.
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.