ArticleJournal of optometry
Comparison of an open view autorefractor with an open view aberrometer in determining peripheral refraction in children.
Article in Journal of optometry. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of refractive parameters provided by a new open field aberrometer and the subjective refraction.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Observational
- IMI-Instrumentation for Myopia Management.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Review
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 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to compare central and peripheral refraction using an open view Shin-Nippon NVision-K 5001 autorefractor and an open view COAS-HD VR aberrometer in young children.
methodsCycloplegic central and peripheral autorefraction was measured in the right eye of 123 children aged 8 to 16 years. Three measurements each were obtained with both Shin-Nippon NVision-K 5001 autorefractor and COAS-HD VR aberrometer along the horizontal visual field up to 30° (nasal and temporal) in 10° steps. The refraction from the autorefractor was compared with aberrometer refraction for pupil analysis diameters of 2.5-mm and 5.0-mm.
resultsThe Shin-Nippon was 0.30 D more hyperopic than COAS-HD VR at 2.5-mm pupil and 0.50 D more hyperopic than COAS-HD VR at 5-mm pupil for central refraction. For both pupil sizes, the 95% limits of agreement were approximately 0.50 D for central refraction, and limits were wider in the nasal visual field compared to the temporal visual field. The mean difference for both J
conclusionDefocus components were similar between the Shin-Nippon autorefractor and the COAS-HD VR aberrometer with a 2.5-mm pupil for most visual field angles. However, there was a significant difference in defocus component between the Shin-Nippon autorefractor and the COAS-HD VR aberrometer with a 5.0-mm pupil, wherein the autorefractor measured more hyperopia. The astigmatic components J
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.