ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2023
Reliability and Agreement of an Integrated Platform for Intelligent Visual Function Measurement.
Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPhoropters are widely accepted for clinical use in refraction examination and visual function assessment. This study assessed the reliability of the new Inspection Platform of Visual Function (IPVF) in comparison with the conventional equipment phoropter (TOPCON VT-10) in visual function assessment.
methodsThis prospective study enrolled 80 eyes of 80 healthy subjects. The horizontal phoria at distance and near (Phoria_D and Phoria_N, respectively) was measured with the von Graefe method, negative/positive relative accommodation (NRA/PRA) was measured with the positive/negative lens method, and accommodative amplitude (AMP) was measured with the minus lens method. Data of three consecutive measurements with each instrument were evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for repeatability, and the agreement of the two instruments was evaluated using a Bland-Altman plot.
resultsThe ICCs of the three consecutive measurements for phoria, NRA/PRA, and AMP using the IPVF instrument were high (0.87-0.96), indicating high repeatability. The ICCs of the three consecutive measurements using the phoropter were high (0.914-0.983) for phoria, NRA, and AMP, indicating high repeatability, while that of PRA was 0.732 (between 0.4 and 0.75), indicating acceptable repeatability. The 95% limits of agreement of phoria, NRA/PRA, and AMP were narrow, indicating good agreement between the two instruments.
conclusionThe repeatability of both instruments was high, and the IPVF instrument was slightly better in terms of PRA repeatability than the phoropter. The agreement of phoria, NRA/PRA, and AMP measured by the new IPVF instrument and phoropter was also satisfactory.
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.