ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2021
Validation of the 2WIN Corneal Reflexes App in children.
Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of smartphone technology for detection of paediatric ocular diseases-a systematic review.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Pooled it
- Digital infrared reflex testing and asynchronous teleconsultation for infant eye screening.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Quantitative Assessment of Strabismus Using Cloud AI Computing: Validation Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Agreement and repeatability of scotopic pupil size measurement with the 2WIN-S portable refractor in Chinese adults.Scientific reports · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo test the reliability and accuracy of the 2Win Refractometer Corneal Reflexes App (CR App) in detecting manifest strabismus in pediatric patients.
methodsProspective study involving 167 children with suspected strabismus (mean age 7.6 years; SD = 3.0, range 2-14 years) undergoing the CR App ocular alignment assessment (Pediatric Ophthalmologist) versus the alternate cover test with prism ocular alignment assessment for distance (Orthoptist) as the gold standard. The AAPOS 2013 guidelines for the detection of manifest strabismus in primary position (> 8 PD) were used.
resultsTotal sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for the CR App were 79.2%, 86.2%, 86.4%, and 78.9%, respectively. The overall inconclusive rate was 17.9%, but was 36.3% in children younger than 5. Sensitivity and PPV for vertical deviations were poor (33.3% and 12.5%, respectively). The accuracy of the CR App regarding the degree (in prism diopters) of manifest deviations was tested with the Wilcoxon signed rank sum test: correlation with the gold standard was good for esodeviations (p value = 0.765, not statistically significant) and poorer for exodeviations (p value = 0.056, still not statistically significant), whereas a significant difference (p value = 0.0001) was observed for vertical deviations.
conclusionThe CR App showed good sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for manifest strabismus > 8PD in accordance with the AAPOS 2013 guidelines; sensitivity and PPV were poor for vertical deviations. The accuracy of the CR App was good for horizontal deviations, but poor for vertical deviations. The inconclusive result rate was high in younger 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.