ArticlePloS one2022
Effect of six different autorefractor designs on the precision and accuracy of refractive error measurement.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of fogging lenses on accommodation using an open-view portable wavefront autorefractor.Journal of optometry · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Agreement of wavefront-based refraction with autorefraction and manifest refraction across refractive and astigmatic profiles in refractive surgery candidates.International ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Age-Related Clinical Agreement Between Noncycloplegic Autorefraction and Subjective Refraction: A Power-Vector Analysis.Journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of a New Algorithm-Based Approach in Subjective Refraction.Journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Improving the estimation of the spherical equivalent subjective refraction using objective information on accommodation.Biomedical optics express · 2025Article
- IMI-Instrumentation for Myopia Management.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Review
- Ocular Biometry Distribution and One-Year Growth in Eight-Year-Old Southern European Schoolchildren Under the CISViT Project.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The effect of cycloplegia in the accuracy of autorefraction, keratometry and axial length using the Myopia Master.BMC ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Ametropia detection using a novel, compact wavefront autorefractor.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2024Article
- Nutritional intake, environmental factors, and their impact on myopia prevalence in Korean children aged 5-12 years.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2024Article
- Influence of power and the time of application of fogging lenses on accommodation.Biomedical optics express · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the precision of objective refraction measurements with six different autorefractors that have different designs and measurement principles and to compare the objective refraction values with the subjective refraction.
methodObjective refraction of 55 participants was measured using six autorefractors with different designs. The instrument features mainly varied in terms of measurement principles, inbuilt fogging, open or closed view, and handheld or stationary designs. Two repeated measurements of objective refraction were performed with each autorefractor. The objective refractions from the six autorefractors were compared with the standard subjective refraction. The repeatability limit and Bland-Altman were used to describe the precision and accuracy of each autorefractor, respectively. The analysis was done using the spherical component of the refraction and the power-vector components, spherical equivalent (M), and cylindrical vectors.
resultsThe repeatability of all autorefractors was within 1.00 and 0.35D for measuring the M and both cylindrical components, respectively. Inbuilt fogging was the common feature of the instruments that showed better repeatability. Compared to subjective refraction, the mean difference for sphere and M was below +0.50D, and it was close to zero for the cylindrical components. The instruments that had inbuilt fogging showed narrower limit of agreement. When combined with fogging, the open field refractors showed better precision and accuracy.
conclusionsThe inbuilt fogging is the most important feature followed by the open view in determining the precision and accuracy of the autorefractor values.
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.