ArticleClinical optometry2021
Grading Sphero-Cylinder Spectacle Similarity.
Article in Clinical optometry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04297969 (Detection of Hyperopia by Photoscreener GoCheckKids With Glow Fixation Device), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 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.
Detection of Hyperopia by Photoscreener GoCheckKids With Glow Fixation Device
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Validation of MOPTIM MRT-200 Refraction Device with 2WIN and Retinomax.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Agreement in non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic refraction between a photoscreener and a calibrated autorefractor.BMC ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Pre-Cycloplegic Exam Benefit of Photoscreening and Accommodation-Relaxing Skiascopy.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
- Comparative Validation of PlusoptiX and AI-Optic Photoscreeners in Children with High Amblyopia Risk Factor Prevalence.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022Article
- Ellipsoid Spectacle Comparison of Plusoptix, Retinomax and 2WIN Autorefractors.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPortable autorefractors can estimate refractive error in remote locations, but sphero-cylinder comparison and donated-spectacle dispensing are not yet simple.
methodsNormal astigmats determined best corrected acuity, then degraded 1 logMAR (Grade A), 3 logMAR (Grade B), and 6 logMAR (Grade C) to determine limits of astigmatism axis and power at these levels. The cylindrical refraction was vector transformed with J0 on the abscissa and J45 on the ordinate.
resultsTen subjects produced multiple refractions at the interfaces of Grades A, B, and C representing ovals on the J0 and J45 coordinates. When rotated, the vertical axis represented 45° or 135°, the horizontal long axis was 1.6× the short axis. The size of the ovals positively correlated with cylinder power. Given a target refraction, the comparability of a candidate lens was demonstrated on our interactive database yielding a simple A, B, C, or worse grade for cylinder, spherical equivalent, and pupillary diameter. CONCLUSIONS/RELEVANCE: Inputting a remote autorefraction, pupillary diameter and age as target and a donated spectacle as the candidate with a "B" grade similarity would be expected to attain 20/40 acuity (3 logMAR degrade) if best corrected visual acuity was 20/20. This practical Excel database could facilitate widespread remote lay dispensing of the cylinder as well as spherical spectacles. The grade similarity can also compare refracting tools such as photoscreeners and hand-held autorefractors. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY: NCT04297969.
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.