Observational studyBMC ophthalmology2021
Refractive outcomes of table-mounted and hand-held auto-refractometers in children: an observational cross-sectional study.
Observational study in BMC ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of Refractive Measurements Using a Handheld Autorefractor (Retinomax K+ Screen) Versus Streak Retinoscopy in Dogs.Veterinary ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Investigation of Natural Refractive Changes in Young Hyperopic Children Using Atropine Cycloplegic Refraction.Cureus · 2025Article
- Reliability of handheld autorefractometers in patients after cataract surgery.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
- Incidence of eye problems in children aged 3-6 years during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Assessment of potential myopia risk factors, including chronotype, in Estonian adolescents: a cross-sectional study.BMC ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Comparison of the new self-contained darkroom refractive screener versus table-top autorefractor and cycloplegia retinoscopy in detecting refractive error.BMC ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Effect of six different autorefractor designs on the precision and accuracy of refractive error measurement.PloS one · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the refractive results of hand-held and table-mounted autorefractors.
methodsWe designed this study as an observational, cross-sectional study. We compared the mean spheric and cylinder power, spherical equivalent, Jackson cross-cylinder values, determined the limits of agreement (LoA), and evaluated the reliability of two autorefractors.
resultsWe evaluated 256 eyes of 256 pediatric patients (mean age, 9.12 ± 2.26 years; range, 5-16 years). 49% of the patients were female, and 51% were male. The Nidek HandyRef-K autorefractor measured relatively more astigmatism (P < 0.001) and less hyperopia (P = 0.024). The mean differences and 95% LoA were 0.06 D ± 0.47 D (- 0.82 D to 0.98 D) in spherical power, 0.08 D ± 0.28 D (- 0.47 D to 0.64 D) in cylindrical power, 0.11 D ± 0.47 D (- 0.81 D to 1.01 D) in spherical equivalent, 0.02 D ± 0.36 D (- 0.73 D to 0.69 D) in Jackson cross-cylinder power at 0°, 0.005 D ± 0.54 D (- 1.07 D to 1.06 D) in Jackson cross-cylinder power at 45°
conclusionTwo autorefractors showed clinically applicable agreement limits; excellent reliability for spherical power and spherical equivalent and good reliability for cylindrical power; high positive percent agreement for spherical and cylindrical power, spherical equivalent, Jackson cross-cylinder power at 0°and 45°. These results showed that both devices might be used interchangeably for screening of refractive error in children.
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.