Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35452207›Full record

ReviewBMJ open ophthalmology2022

Dioptric power and refractive behaviour: a review of methods and applications.

Alan Rubin, Tanya Evans, Nabeela Hasrod

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Alan RubinDepartment of Optometry, University of Johannesburg - Doornfontein Campus, Johannesburg, Gauteng, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0001-6217-7862
Tanya EvansDepartment of Optometry, University of Johannesburg - Doornfontein Campus, Johannesburg, Gauteng, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0001-8307-2912
Nabeela HasrodDepartment of Optometry, University of Johannesburg - Doornfontein Campus, Johannesburg, Gauteng, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-4105-5513

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Myopia is a global healthcare concern and effective analyses of dioptric power are important in evaluating potential treatments involving surgery, orthokeratology, drugs such as low-dose (0.05%) atropine and gene therapy. This paper considers issues of concern when analysing refractive state such as data normality, transformations, outliers and anisometropia. A brief review of methods for analysing and representing dioptric power is included but the emphasis is on the optimal approach to understanding refractive state (and its variation) in addressing pertinent clinical and research questions. Although there have been significant improvements in the analysis of refractive state, areas for critical consideration remain and the use of power matrices as opposed to power vectors is one such area. Another is effective identification of outliers in refractive data. The type of multivariate distribution present with samples of dioptric power is often not considered. Similarly, transformations of samples (of dioptric power) towards normality and the effects of such transformations are not thoroughly explored. These areas (outliers, normality and transformations) need further investigation for greater efficacy and proper inferences regarding refractive error. Although power vectors are better known, power matrices are accentuated herein due to potential advantages for statistical analyses of dioptric power such as greater simplicity, completeness, and improved facility for quantitative and graphical representation of refractive state.

Indexed as

AnisometropiaMyopiaRefractive ErrorsHumansPrescriptionsRefraction, Ocularoptics and refractionpublic healthvision

Identifiers

PMID35452207
PMCPMC8977790

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.