ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2023
Dioptric differences between clinically determined and metric-optimised refractions for adults with Down syndrome.
Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeRefractions based on the optimisation of single-value wavefront-derived metrics may help determine appropriate corrections for individuals with Down syndrome where clinical techniques fall short. This study compared dioptric differences between refractions obtained using standard clinical techniques and two metric-optimised methods: visual Strehl ratio (VSX) and pupil fraction tessellated (PFSt), and investigated characteristics that may contribute to the differences between refraction types.
methodsThirty adults with Down syndrome (age = 29 ± 10 years) participated. Three refractive corrections (VSX, PFSt and clinical) were determined and converted to vector notation (M, J
resultsThe least squares mean estimates (standard error) of the dioptric differences for each pairing were as follows: VSX versus PFSt = 0.51 D (0.11); VSX versus clinical = 1.19 D (0.11) and PFSt versus clinical = 1.04 D (0.11). There was a statistically significant difference in the dioptric differences between the clinical refraction and each of the metric-optimised refractions (p < 0.001). Increased dioptric differences in refraction were correlated with increased higher order RMS (R = 0.64, p < 0.001 [VSX vs. clinical] and R = 0.47, p < 0.001 [PFSt vs. clinical]) as well as increased myopic spherical equivalent refractive error (R = 0.37, p = 0.004 [VSX vs. clinical] and R = 0.51, p < 0.001 [PFSt vs. clinical]).
conclusionsThe observed differences in refraction demonstrate that a significant portion of the refractive uncertainty is related to increased higher order aberrations and myopic refractive error. Methodology surrounding clinical techniques and metric-optimisation based on wavefront aberrometry may explain the difference in refractive endpoints.
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.