Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33883087›Full record

ArticleJournal of optometry

Agreement and inter-session repeatability of manual and automatic interpupillary distance measurements.

Liat Gantz, Einat Shneor, Ravid Doron

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of optometry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Theoretical performance of progressive addition lenses with poorly measured individual parameters.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. A Preliminary Study on Comparative Eye Tracking Analysis Using a Meta Quest Pro.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Liat GantzDepartment of Optometry and Vision Science, Hadassah Academic College, 37 Haneviim St, Jerusalem, 9101001 Israel. Electronic address: liatg@hac.ac.il.
Einat ShneorDepartment of Optometry and Vision Science, Hadassah Academic College, 37 Haneviim St, Jerusalem, 9101001 Israel.
Ravid DoronDepartment of Optometry and Vision Science, Hadassah Academic College, 37 Haneviim St, Jerusalem, 9101001 Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInterpupillary distance (IPD) is important in developmental anatomy, genetics, design of optical instrumentation, ocular diagnostics, and optical prescribing. IPD frequently is measured on different days, and by either automatic pupillometers (physiological measurement) or manual ruler (anatomical measurement). Therefore, there is importance in the agreement and inter-session repeatability of manual and automatic IPD measurements.

methodsMonocular distance from the bridge of the nose and binocular distance and near binocular IPD were randomly measured, using a millimeter ruler and the Essilor Pupillon pupillometer. Gender effects were assessed using Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney tests, respectively. Agreement was assessed using Spearman correlation and Bland-Altman (B&A) plots. Thirty additional participants were tested within 1-2 weeks to determine the inter-session repeatability.

resultsThe agreement study included 199 participants (mean age: 24.1 ± 5.0 range: 19-53, 58 male, 141 female) and the repeatability sub- study included 30 (mean age: 27.9 ± 4.5, range: 23-39, 6 male, 24 female). Males and females significantly differed in age (<2 year mean difference (md)) and IPD (monocular md: < 1 mm, binocular md: < 2 mm). Manual vs. automatic measurements were significantly different for all conditions (md: <1 mm for all) except for distance left eye male PD. There was no significant difference between the session for both methods.

conclusionsBinocular and monocular manual and automatic measurements were significantly different statistically, but not clinically. Distance binocular IPD was approximately 3 mm wider than near IPD. Male binocular IPD was approximately 2 mm wider than the female IPD. Both methods had good inter-session repeatability.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Techniques, OphthalmologicalPupilAdultFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultBinocular interpupillary distanceDistance interpupillary distanceMonocular interpupillary distanceNear interpupillary distancePupillary distance

Identifiers

PMID33883087
PMCPMC8569403

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.