ArticleOman journal of ophthalmology
Comparison between Plusoptix A09 and gold standard cycloplegic refraction in preschool children and agreement to detect refractive amblyogenic risk factors.
Article in Oman journal of ophthalmology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Cycloplegic Refraction Using the Eyerobo Vision Screener: Design-A Cross-Sectional Comparative Device Study.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Article
- Determination of Refractive Error Using Direct Ophthalmoscopy in Children.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
- Amblyogenic risk factors and validity of vision screening using spot-screener among kindergarten children in Qassim region, Saudi Arabia.Saudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe preschool children hardly complain about their vision problems. It is of paramount importance to screen them with an objective tool and compare with the gold standard technique.
aimTo compare the values obtained with Plusoptix A09 and cycloplegic refraction in 3-6 years children and agreement to detect refractive amblyogenic risk factors. SUBJECTS AND
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted in the Outpatient Department of Ophthalmology in a tertiary care hospital. Informed consent from parents and verbal assent from children were obtained. Each subject had monocular vision assessment with Lea symbol chart, stereo acuity measurement with Frisby, refractive screening with Plusoptix A09, squint assessment, and anterior segment evaluation before administering Homatropine hydrobromide (homide) 2% eye drops. Cycloplegic refraction and posterior segment evaluation were performed for final diagnosis. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. Spearman correlation coefficient and kappa statistics were also employed.
resultsIn total, data of 94 children were analyzed. The correlation values obtained between plusoptix and cyclorefraction values for spherical, cylindrical, spherical equivalent were 0.508 (
conclusionGood correlation was found between the plusoptix and cyclorefraction values. Cylindrical values showed a better correlation. Refractive errors and amblyopia were the major ocular disorders observed. There was significant agreement between the refractive techniques in detecting amblyogenic risk factors.
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.