ArticleInternational ophthalmology2022
A novel method to measure margin reflex distance using the autorefractometer.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Use of electronic health records to examine margin-to-reflex distance in patients without eyelid conditions affecting position.International ophthalmology · 2026Observational
- A comprehensive system for eyelid analysis using deep learning: automated measurement of eyelid position and corneal exposure.Biomedical engineering letters · 2026Article
- Effective encoder-decoder network for pupil light reflex segmentation in facial photographs of ptosis patients.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Sector area index: a novel supporting marker for blepharoptosis screening and grading.International ophthalmology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine the margin reflex distance (MRD) in healthy subjects using autorefractometer front monitor images (ARFMI) and validate the accuracy of this method by comparing it with conventional methods.
methodsOne hundred eyes of 50 healthy subjects aged 20-59 years were included in the study. Autorefractometer front monitor images were video-recorded using a smartphone camera, and screenshots were taken to analyze the MRD. The results were compared with those from conventional methods to determine the reliability of the method. To evaluate the repeatability and reproducibility of all measurement methods, we performed two different visits by two observers.
resultsThe mean MRD-1 of the autorefractometer image measurement was 4.29 ± 0.90 mm, mean MRD-1 of the of the digital photography image measurement was 3.78 ± 1.03 mm, and mean MRD-1 of the manual measurement was 4.02 ± 1.09 mm. The mean difference (MD) of MRD-1 was analyzed and it was found that MD of the autorefractometer image was significantly higher than the MD of other groups (p < 0.001). The best repeatability was found in the autorefractometer image measurement [intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC): 0.960], and substantial to excellent repeatability was found in the manual (ICC: 0.903) and digital photography image measurements (ICC: 0.843). The mean inter-eye difference of MRD-1 measured by the three methods was analyzed, and there was a statistically significant difference in the autorefractometer and digital image groups (p: 0.001, p: 0.002, respectively).
conclusionMargin reflex distance measurement using ARFMI analysis is a novel, simple, accurate, reliable, and objective method. The autorefractometer device is readily available and can be found in any ophthalmic clinic. Therefore, ophthalmologists can easily measure and record MRD values and use the accurate and reliable results for follow-up and medicolegal issues.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34738206What 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.