Trial reportInternational ophthalmology2023
Theoretical derivation and clinical validation of the resolution limit of human eye to spherical lens change: a self-controlled study.
Trial report in International ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to deduce theoretically and verify the resolution limit of human eye to spherical lens change for more reasonable design of the trial lenses.
methodsA total of 119 normal subjects with different myopia (not more than - 6D) were included. First, the resolution limit of discernible change in spherical power was derived based on the optical model. Then, the subjects were observed to see if they could perceive the changes in spherical power as per the resolution limit and compare the difference in the best-corrected visual acuity obtained with the resolution limit and interval of 0.25D.
resultsAssuming that the cone cell diameter is 3 μm and the pupil diameter of 4 mm, the theoretically resolution limit was 0.05D. When the diopter of spherical power was increased, the ratios of ability to perceive 0.05D spherical lens change were 98.3% and 96.7% in right and left eyes. When the diopter of spherical power was decreased, the ratios of ability to perceive 0.05D spherical lens change were 78.9% and 83.2% in right and left eyes. The best-corrected visual acuity obtained with the 0.05 D interval trial lens was significantly better than in the 0.25 D interval on both eyes (Right eye - 0.04 ± 0.07 vs - 0.02 ± 0.06, p < 0.001; Left eye - 0.07 ± 0.06 vs - 0.04 ± 0.06, t = 8.825, p < 0.001).
conclusionThe resolution limit of human eye to spherical lens change was about 0.05D and the better corrected visual acuity can be obtained by adjusting the spherical power at an interval of 0.05D. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR2100047074. Date of registration: 2021/6/7.
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.