ArticlePloS one2020
Assesment of the QuickSee wavefront autorefractor for characterizing refractive errors in school-age children.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Refraction Obtained with the Myopia Master and Subjective Manifest Refraction in Pediatric Orthokeratology.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- To Evaluate the Agreement and Repeatability of the Eyerobo VS Portable Autorefractor Cycloplegic Refraction in Children and Adolescents.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Clinical Evaluation of an Affordable Handheld Wavefront Autorefractor in an Adult Population in a Low-Resource Setting in the Amazonas.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The QuickSee autorefractor reliably measures the accommodative response in children compared with the Shin-Nippon autorefractor.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025Article
- The prevalence and demographic profile of myopia among school children in Beirut City, Lebanon.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Prevalence of uncorrected refractive error in low-resource high schools in the Free State, South Africa.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2025Article
- Optical and Visual Diet in Myopia.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Review
- Evaluation of the QuickSee portable autorefractor system in a pediatric population.Journal of AAPOS : the official publication of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Portable, Low-Cost Autorefractor in School Students with Limited Eye Care Access in Northeastern Brazil.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Ametropia detection using a novel, compact wavefront autorefractor.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2024Article
- Pre-Cycloplegic Exam Benefit of Photoscreening and Accommodation-Relaxing Skiascopy.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
- Correction: Assesment of the QuickSee wavefront autorefractor for characterizing refractive errors in school-age children.PloS one · 2022Article
- Validation of a Simple-to-Use, Affordable, Portable Wavefront Aberrometry-Based Auto Refractometer in a Paediatric Population.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the performance of an open-view binocular handheld aberrometer (QuickSee) for diagnosing refractive errors in children.
methods123 school-age children (9.9 ± 3.3 years) with moderate refractive error underwent autorefraction (AR) with a standard desktop device and subjective refraction (SR), with or without cycloplegia to determine their eyeglass prescription. Measurements with QuickSee (QS) were taken in 62 of these patients without cycloplegia (NC), and in 61 under cycloplegia (C). Differences in refraction values (AR vs SR vs QS) as well as the visual acuity (VA) achieved by the patients with each method (QS vs SR) were used to evaluate the performance of the device in measuring refractive error.
resultsThe spherical equivalent refraction obtained by QS agreed within 0.5 D of the SR in 71% (NC) and 70% (C) of the cases. Agreement between the desktop autorefractor and SR for the same threshold was of 61% (NC) and 77% (C). VA resulting from QS refractions was equal to or better than that achieved by SR procedure in 77% (NC) and 74% (C) of the patients. Average improvement in VA with the QS refractions was of 8.6 and 13.4 optotypes for the NC and C groups respectively, while the SR procedure provided average improvements of 8.9 (NC) and 14.8 (C) optotypes.
conclusionsThe high level of agreement between QuickSee and subjective refraction together with the VA improvement achieved in both study groups using QuickSee refractions suggest that the device is a useful autorefraction tool for school-age children.
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.