Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36536321›Full record

ArticleBMC ophthalmology2022

Validation of a simple-to-use, affordable, portable, wavefront aberrometry-based auto refractometer in the adult population: A prospective study.

Divya Parthasarathy Rao, Kalpa Negiloni, Sivasundaravadivel Gurunathan, Selvaraj Velkumar, Anand Sivaraman, Adeeb Ulla Baig, B Kumari, Kaushik Murali

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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) · 2025
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Ametropia detection using a novel, compact wavefront autorefractor.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2024
    Article
  7. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Divya Parthasarathy RaoR&D, Remidio Innovative Solutions Inc., 11357 Nuckols Rd, #102, Glen Allen, Virginia, 23059, USA. drdivya@remidio.com.
Kalpa NegiloniR&D, Remidio Innovative Solutions Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru, India.
Sivasundaravadivel GurunathanR&D, Remidio Innovative Solutions Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru, India.
Selvaraj VelkumarR&D, Remidio Innovative Solutions Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru, India.
Anand SivaramanR&D, Remidio Innovative Solutions Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru, India.
Adeeb Ulla BaigR&D, Remidio Innovative Solutions Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru, India.
B KumariDepartment of Pediatric Ophthalmology, Sankara Eye Hospital, Bengaluru, India.
Kaushik MuraliDepartment of Pediatric Ophthalmology, Sankara Eye Hospital, Bengaluru, India.
Remidio Innovative Solutions (India) · INEye Hospital in Bangalore · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRefraction is one of the key components of a comprehensive eye examination. Auto refractometers that are reliable and affordable can be beneficial, especially in a low-resource community setting. The study aimed to validate the accuracy of a novel wave-front aberrometry-based auto refractometer, Instaref R20 against the open-field system and subjective refraction in an adult population.

methodsAll the participants underwent a comprehensive eye examination including objective refraction, subjective acceptance, anterior and posterior segment evaluation. Refraction was performed without cycloplegia using WAM5500 open-field auto refractometer (OFAR) and Instaref R20, the study device. Agreement between both methods was evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis. The repeatability of the device based on three measurements in a subgroup of 40 adults was assessed.

resultsThe refractive error was measured in 132 participants (mean age,30.53 ± 9.36 years, 58.3% female). The paired mean difference of the refraction values of the study device against OFAR was - 0.13D for M, - 0.0002D (J0) and - 0.13D (J45) and against subjective refraction (SR) was - 0.09D (M), 0.06 (J0) and 0.03D (J45). The device agreed within +/- 0.50D of OFAR in 78% of eyes for M, 79% for J0 and 78% for J45. The device agreed within +/- 0.5D of SR values for M (84%), J0 (86%) and J45 (89%).

conclusionThis study found a good agreement between the measurements obtained with the portable autorefractor against open-field refractometer and SR values. It has a potential application in population-based community vision screening programs for refractive error correction without the need for highly trained personnel.

Indexed as

Refractive ErrorsVision ScreeningAberrometryAdultFemaleHumansMaleProspective StudiesRefraction, OcularReproducibility of ResultsVision TestsYoung AdultAuto refractionAuto refractometerComprehensive eye examinationEye screeningInstaRef R20Refractive errorWavefront aberrometry

Identifiers

PMID36536321
PMCPMC9764520
OpenAlexW4312094459

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.