ArticleJournal of optometry
Agreement and inter-session repeatability of manual and automatic interpupillary distance measurements.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Normative interpupillary and canthal measurements in the Nepalese population: a hospital-based study.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- The Interpupillary Distance Differs Between Ethnicities and Associates with Horizontal Strabismus Patterns: Evidence from a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
- The interpupillary distance differs between ethnicities and associates with horizontal strabismus patterns: Evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Interpupillary Distance and Peripapillary Myopic Changes: A Pilot Study in a Glaucomatous Cohort.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- A Comparative Analysis of Interpupillary Distance Measurement Techniques Evaluation in Modern Times: From Rulers to Apps.Clinical optometry · 2024Article
- Theoretical performance of progressive addition lenses with poorly measured individual parameters.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2023Article
- Improving interpupillary distance accuracy in the plusoptix A12R: A distance-dependent correction.Journal of optometryArticle
- A Preliminary Study on Comparative Eye Tracking Analysis Using a Meta Quest Pro.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.