ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2022
Validation of a Simple-to-Use, Affordable, Portable Wavefront Aberrometry-Based Auto Refractometer in a Paediatric Population.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of light barrier and type of refractive error on the performance of a portable wavefront aberrometer-based auto refractometer.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Retinoscopes: Past and present.World journal of methodology · 2024Article
- Instrument-based, non-cycloplegic versus cycloplegic refraction in pediatric and young adult populations (≤25 years): A systematic review and meta-analysis.Advances in ophthalmology practice and researchReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: InstaRef R20 is a handheld, affordable auto refractometer based on Shack Hartmann aberrometry technology. The study's objective was to compare InstaRef R20's performance for identifying refractive error in a paediatric population to that of standard subjective and objective refraction under both pre- and post-cycloplegic conditions. Methods: Refraction was performed using 1) standard clinical procedure consisting of retinoscopy followed by subjective refraction (SR) under pre- and post-cycloplegic conditions and 2) InstaRef R20. Agreement between both methods was evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis. The repeatability of the device based on three measurements in a subgroup of 20 children was assessed. Results: The refractive error was measured in 132 children (mean age 12.31 ± 3 years). The spherical equivalent (M) and cylindrical components (J0 and J45) of the device had clinically acceptable differences (within ±0.50D) and acceptable agreement compared to standard pre- and post-cycloplegic manual retinoscopy and subjective refraction (SR). The device agreed within ± 0.50D of retinoscopy in 67% of eyes for M, 78% for J0 and 80% for J45 and within ± 0.50D of SR in 70% for M and 77% for cylindrical components. Conclusion: InstaRef R20 has an acceptable agreement compared to standard retinoscopy in paediatric population. The measurements from this device can be used as a starting point for subjective acceptance. The device being simple to use, portable, reliable and affordable has the potential for large-scale community-based refractive error detection.
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.