ArticleBMJ open ophthalmology2022
Comparison of the Near Eye Tool for Refractive Assessment (NETRA) and non-cycloplegic subjective refraction.
Article in BMJ open 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deep learning-empowered low-cost portable automated refraction system: A solution to the inadequate effective correction rate of refractive errors in resource-limited areas.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025Trial
- Refractive shifts in astronauts during spaceflight: mechanisms, countermeasures, and future directions for in-flight measurements.Eye (London, England) · 2024Article
- Multivariate analysis of repeatability for the Near Eye Tool for Refractive Assessment (NETRA).BMJ open ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Comparisons of objective and subjective refraction with and without cycloplegia using binocular wavefront optometer with autorefraction and retinoscopy in school-age children.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The NETRA (Near Eye Tool for Refractive Assessment) is a smartphone-based refractive tool that allows for self-evaluation of refractive error. This study investigates the validity of the NETRA with and without cycloplegia to non-cycloplegic subjective refractions (SR). Methods and analysis: Participants underwent NETRA measurements without cycloplegia, and again after the administration of cycloplegia (cyclopentolate hydrochloride 1%). Non-cycloplegic SR were also performed. Variation of refractive measurements in symmetric dioptric power space were investigated using stereo-pair comets, hypothesis tests for variances and means. Bland-Altman plots were applied to better understand validity of the NETRA against non-cycloplegic SR. Coefficients of repeatability and intraclass correlation coefficients were also determined. Results: The sample included 22 women (64.7%) and 12 men (35.3%); most were indigenous Africans (52.9%) with mean age and SD of 20.24±1.95 years. Variation of refractive measurements were mainly stigmatic (spherical), and variation of NETRA measurements decreased after cycloplegia. The pre-cycloplegia NETRA measurements (and their means) for the right and left eyes were more negative (myopic) in power than the post-cycloplegia NETRA measurements and means. On average, eyes were approximately 1.25 D more myopic with the NETRA without cycloplegia. With cycloplegia, NETRA results were in closer agreement with non-cycloplegic SR for the same eyes. Conclusion: NETRA validity to SR, even in the absence of cycloplegia, suggests the instrument may be useful in geographical regions where self-refractions might be potentially helpful in addressing limitations in eye and vision care.
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.