ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2020
First Evaluation of a Retinal Imaging Laser Eyewear System Based Low Vision Aid.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ocular Accommodative and Pupillary Responses During Fixation on Augmented Reality With a Maxwellian Display.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe conducted this trial to investigate a new wearable laser-eyewear (LEW). Images of an integrated camera are projected to the retina by a RGB-Laser (<1µW) and MEMS-mirror system. This enables a full-color live video as augmented reality embedded in the field of vision of the wearer. Thin parallel laser beams are projected following the principle of Maxwellian view through the center of the ocular lens to ensure independency of refractive errors. We performed a study with healthy subjects to test this independency. MATERIALS AND
methodsLEW was tested in 20 healthy subjects (aged between 21 and 60 years) with hyperopia, myopia, astigmatism and/or presbyopia. Subjects underwent standardized visual acuity (VA) measurements (ETDRS) without any correction, with LEW and with best correction.
resultsWe found no significant correlation between refraction and VA while using LEW in linear regression (r=0.17). Still, younger participants performed better in terms of VA with the device compared to older participants despite no differences in BCVA (p<0.01). The achievable VA with LEW was in general reduced compared to uncorrected VA (0.50 vs 0.40 logMAR). Only myopic subjects reached a significantly higher VA using LEW (p<0.001). Presbyopic subjects showed enhanced near VA (0.25 logMAR) by reading at 15cm with LEW without any further necessary refractive correction. Nearly all patients (80%) showed stereopsis without need for additional adjustments.
conclusionOur investigation could verify the independence of LEW of refractive errors. Therefore, the technology seems to be especially useful in patients with untreatable corneal conditions, e.g., after corneal burns, to achieve higher VA since the thin laser should penetrate even corneal opacities with less scattering.
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.