ArticlePeerJ2023
Intrasession repeatability and agreement of a new method to measure the foveal fixation axis.
Article in PeerJ, 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.
- Visual satisfaction with progressive addition lenses prescribed with novel foveal fixation axis measurements.Scientific reports · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Ophthalmic lens adaptation, particularly with progressive addition lenses, requires accurate measurements of the patient nasopupillary distance (NPD) and interpupillary distance (IPD), which are usually collected using the pupil centre as a reference. However, differences between the pupil centre and visual or foveal axis could induce some subsidiary effects of correcting lenses. This study aimed to assess the intrasession repeatability of a new prototype (Ergofocus®; Lentitech, Barakaldo, Spain) that can measure the foveal fixation axis (FFA) distance and assess the agreement with the NPD measurements collected using a traditional method (frame ruler). Methods: The FFA at far and near distances was measured three consecutive times in 39 healthy volunteers to determine the intrasession repeatability according to the British Standards Institute and International Organization for Standardization. Additionally, the FFA and NPD (standard frame ruler) were measured in 71 healthy volunteers and compared using Bland-Altman analysis. Two blinded experienced practitioners conducted each FFA and NPD measurement. Results: The FFA measurements showed acceptable repeatability at far distances (right eye (RE): Sw = 1.16 ± 0.76 mm and coefficient of variation (CV) = 3.92 ± 2.51%; left eye (LE) Sw = 1.11 ± 0.79 mm and CV = 3.76 ± 2.51%) and at near distances (RE: Sw = 0.97 ± 0.85 mm and CV = 3.52 ± 3.02%; LE: Sw = 1.17 ± 0.96 mm and CV = 4.54 ± 3.72%). Additionally, agreement with the NPD showed large differences at far distances (RE: -2.15 ± 2.34, LoA = -6.73 to 2.43 mm ( Conclusions: FFA measurements showed clinically acceptable repeatability at both far and near distances. Agreement with the NPD measured using a standard frame ruler showed significant differences, suggesting that both measurements are not interchangeable in clinical practice to prescribe and center ophthalmic lenses. Further research is necessary to assess the impact of FFA measurement in ophthalmic lens prescriptions.
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.