ArticleBeyoglu eye journal2021
Accuracy of Photorefraction and Wavefront-Based Autorefraction in Children Under 3 Years of Age.
Article in Beyoglu eye journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Retinoscopes: Past and present.World journal of methodology · 2024Article
- The Performance of Spot Photoscreener in 6 to 10 Weeks Infants in China: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study was designed to assess the accuracy of photorefraction and wavefront-based autorefraction in children under 3 years of age.
methodsA cross-sectional study was performed with children who had no ocular abnormalities other than a refractive error and were less than 3 years old. Spot Vision Screener (Welch Allyn Inc., Skaneateles Falls, NY, USA) was used for photorefraction and SureSight Vision Screener (Welch Allyn, Skaneateles Falls, NY) was used for autorefraction. The measurements were performed with both devices before and after cycloplegia. The results were compared with those obtained using cycloplegic retinoscopy. The assessments were performed in terms of spherical equivalent (SE) values and Jackson cross-cylinder power values (J0 and J45).
resultsA total of 305 children with a mean age of 15.1±10.4 months were included. The mean SE values measured with the Spot Vision and SureSight before cycloplegia were 0.43±0.75 D and 0.90±0.86 D, respectively. Following cycloplegia, the mean SE values were 1.80±1.25 D and 1.55±1.40 D, respectively. The mean SE value obtained with cycloplegic retinoscopy was 1.53±1.34 D. The mean SE values measured with both devices prior to cycloplegia were significantly lower than that measured with cycloplegic retinoscopy (p<0.001). No significant difference was observed between the cycloplegic SE values obtained with SureSight and retinoscopy (p=0.66). Spot Vision yielded significantly higher cycloplegic SE values compared with cycloplegic retinoscopy (p<0.001).
conclusionBoth devices underestimated SE values in comparison with cycloplegic retinoscopy in children under 3 years of age. Wavefront-based autorefraction performed with cycloplegia may be an alternative to cycloplegic retinoscopy, but needs confirmation.
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.