Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37019707›Full record

ArticleJournal of optometry

Accuracy and precision of automated subjective refraction in young hyperopes under cycloplegia.

Gonzalo Carracedo, Carlos Carpena-Torres, Cristina Pastrana, María Rodríguez-Lafora, María Serramito, Ana Privado-Aroco, Teresa María Espinosa-Vidal

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of optometry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Gonzalo CarracedoOcupharm Research Group, Department of Optometry and Vision, Faculty of Optics and Optometry, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: jgcarrac@ucm.es.
Carlos Carpena-TorresOcupharm Research Group, Department of Optometry and Vision, Faculty of Optics and Optometry, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Cristina PastranaOcupharm Research Group, Department of Optometry and Vision, Faculty of Optics and Optometry, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
María Rodríguez-LaforaOcupharm Research Group, Department of Optometry and Vision, Faculty of Optics and Optometry, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
María SerramitoOcupharm Research Group, Department of Optometry and Vision, Faculty of Optics and Optometry, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Ana Privado-ArocoOcupharm Research Group, Department of Optometry and Vision, Faculty of Optics and Optometry, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Teresa María Espinosa-VidalOcupharm Research Group, Department of Optometry and Vision, Faculty of Optics and Optometry, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Universidad Complutense de Madrid · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess the agreement between the Eye Refract, an instrument to perform subjective automated refraction, and the traditional subjective refraction, as the gold standard, in young hyperopes under noncycloplegic and cycloplegic conditions.

methodsA cross-section and randomized study was carried out, involving 42 participants (18.2 ± 7.7 years, range 6 to 31 years). Only one eye was chosen for the analysis, randomly. An optometrist conducted the refraction with the Eye Refract, while another different optometrist conducted the traditional subjective refraction. Spherical equivalent (M), cylindrical components (J0 and J45), and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) were compared between both refraction methods under noncycloplegic and cycloplegic conditions. A Bland-Altman analysis was performed to assess the agreement (accuracy and precision) between both refraction methods.

resultsWithout cycloplegia, the Eye Refract showed significantly lower values of hyperopia than the traditional subjective refraction (p < 0.009), the mean difference (accuracy) and its 95% limits of agreement (precision) being -0.31 (+0.85, -1.47) D. Conversely, there were no statistical differences between both refraction methods under cycloplegic conditions (p ≥ 0.05). Regarding J0 and J45, both refraction methods manifested no significant differences between them under noncycloplegic and cycloplegic conditions (p ≥ 0.05). Finally, the Eye Refract significantly improved CDVA (0.04 ± 0.01 logMAR) compared with the traditional subjective refraction without cycloplegia (p = 0.01).

conclusionsThe Eye Refract is presented as a useful instrument to determine the refractive error in young hyperopes, the use of cycloplegia being necessary to obtain accurate and precise spherical refraction.

Indexed as

HyperopiaPresbyopiaRefractive ErrorsHumansMydriaticsRefraction, OcularVision TestsMydriaticsAutomated refractionEye refractHyperopiaSubjective refraction

Identifiers

PMID37019707
PMCPMC10518767
OpenAlexW4362583852

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.