Comparison of the results of four different refraction measurement devices in children with retinoscopy.

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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Defocus incorporated multiple segment spectacle lenses versus orthokeratology lenses for myopia control: a non-inferiority randomised clinical trial.BMC ophthalmology · 2026
   Trial
2. Association of Age and Spherical Equivalent With Differences in Cycloplegic Refractive Effects Between Cyclopentolate and Atropine.Cureus · 2026
   Article
3. Comparison of refractive parameters provided by a new open field aberrometer and the subjective refraction.BMC ophthalmology · 2026
   Observational
4. Retinoscopes: Past and present.World journal of methodology · 2024
   Article
5. Efficacy and Safety of 0.03% Atropine Eye Drops in Controlling Myopia Progression: A One-Year Prospective Clinical Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024
   Article

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.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as