ArticlePloS one2021
Accuracy of autorefraction in an adult Indian population.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Reliability and Acceptability of RDx-Based Tele-Controlled Subjective Refraction Compared with Traditional Subjective Refraction.Translational vision science & technology · 2022Trial
- Assessment of the Spot vision screener performance in detecting amblyopia and strabismus in Nepal: a prospective diagnostic accuracy study.Journal of AAPOS : the official publication of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus · 2026Article
- Effect of light barrier and type of refractive error on the performance of a portable wavefront aberrometer-based auto refractometer.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Development and Testing of a Compact Autorefractor Based on Double-Pass Imaging.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Validation of a simple-to-use, affordable, portable, wavefront aberrometry-based auto refractometer in the adult population: A prospective study.BMC ophthalmology · 2022Article
- What are the causes of non-tolerance to new spectacles and how can they be avoided?Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAutorefractors allow non-specialists to quickly assess refractive error, and thus could be a useful component of large-scale vision screening programs. In order to better characterize the role of autorefraction for public health outreach programs in resource-limited settings, the diagnostic accuracy of two autorefractors was assessed relative to subjective refraction in an adult Indian population.
methodsAn optometrist refracted a series of patients aged ≥50 years at an eye clinic in Bangalore, India using the Nidek ARK-900 autorefractor first, followed by the 3nethra Royal autorefractor, and then subjective refraction. The diagnostic accuracy of each autorefractor for myopia, hyperopia, and astigmatism was assessed using subjective refraction as the reference standard, and measures of agreement between refractions were calculated.
resultsA total of 197 eyes in 104 individuals (mean age 63 ± 8 years, 52% female) were evaluated. Both autorefractors produced spherical equivalent estimates that were on average more hyperopic than subjective refraction, with a measurement bias of +0.16 D (95%CI +0.09 to +0.23D) for Nidek and +0.42 D (95%CI +0.28 to +0.54D) for 3nethra. When comparing pairs of measurements from autorefraction and subjective refraction, the limits of agreement were approximately ±1D for the Nidek autorefractor and ±1.75D for the 3Nethra autorefractor. The sensitivity and specificity of detecting ≥1 diopter of myopia were 94.6% (95%CI 86.8-100%) and 92.5% (95%CI 88.9-97.5%) for the Nidek, and 89.2% (95%CI 66.7-97.4) and 77.5% (95%CI 71.2-99.4%) for the 3Nethra. The accuracy of each autorefractor increased at greater levels of refractive error.
conclusionsThe sensitivity and specificity of the Nidek autorefractor for diagnosing refractive error among adults ≥50 years in an urban Indian clinic was sufficient for screening for visually significant refractive errors, although the relatively wide limits of agreement suggest that subjective refinement of the eyeglasses prescription would still be necessary.
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.