Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36161849›Full record

ArticleBMJ open ophthalmology2022

Interexaminer reproducibility for subjective refractions for an ametropic participant.

Solani David Mathebula, Alan Rubin

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Ametropia detection using a novel, compact wavefront autorefractor.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Solani David MathebulaOptometry, University of Limpopo, Sovenga, Limpopo, South Africa solani.mathebula@ul.ac.za.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8196-2567
Alan RubinOptometry, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, Gauteng, South Africa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6217-7862
University of Johannesburg · ZAUniversity of Limpopo · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate interexaminer reproducibility of non-cycloplegic subjective refractions. Subjective refractions are frequently determined, and it is important to know whether differences in refractive state over time constitute meaningful, non-random change. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Fifty registered and experienced (≥5 years) optometrists from a single geographic region performed non-cycloplegic subjective refractions for a participant with moderate left eye(OS) to severe right eye (OD) ametropia. Subjective refractions were transformed to power matrices for analysis with stereopairs, distribution ellipsoids and polar profiles of variance of dioptric power. Absolute 95% limits of reproducibility ([Formula: see text](SD)) for excesses of subjective refractions for the right and left eyes separately from mean subjective refractions were determined.

resultsMean subjective refractions were -7.68-4.50×10 and -4.59-1.85×178 for the right and left eyes, respectively. The 95% absolute reproducibility limits for the stigmatic coefficients (spherical equivalents) were ≤1.71 D and ≤0.75 D for the right and left eyes, but corresponding limits for astigmatic coefficients were smaller (≤0.69 D).

conclusionRemoval of possible outliers for OD and OS, respectively, reduces the absolute 95% reproducibility limits for the stigmatic and astigmatic coefficients to ≤0.97 D and ≤0.49 D, thus improving interexaminer reproducibility. However, these results suggest caution with analysis of refractive data where subjective rather than objective methods are applied for longitudinal and epidemiological studies.

Indexed as

Refractive ErrorsEyeHumansRefraction, OcularReproducibility of ResultsVision TestsOptics and Refraction

Identifiers

PMID36161849
PMCPMC9096535
OpenAlexW4281397230

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.