ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2023
Utilising a visual image quality metric to optimise spectacle prescriptions for eyes with keratoconus.
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. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- What is the quality-of-life status of patients with keratoconus who have not had a surgical intervention? A systematic review.Eye (London, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Impact of contact lens correction on wavefront aberrations and vision quality in keratoconus.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025Review
- Non-orthogonal spectacle correction for irregular astigmatism.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025Article
- Dioptric differences between clinically determined and metric-optimised refractions for adults with Down syndrome.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare optical performance, visual performance, and patient-perceived quality of vision with: (1) spectacles determined using subjective refraction and (2) spectacles determined using an objective optimisation method based on wavefront aberration data for eyes with keratoconus.
methodsThirty-seven eyes (20 subjects) with keratoconus underwent both subjective refraction and uncorrected wavefront aberration measurement. Wavefront aberration data were used to objectively identify a sphero-cylindrical refraction that optimised the visual image quality metric visual Strehl ratio (VSX). The two refractions were assembled in trial frames and worn by the subject in a random order. High-contrast visual acuity (VA), letter contrast sensitivity (CS), and the patient's short-term subjective preference were recorded for each prescription.
resultsMedian magnitude of the dioptric difference (a measure of similarity between the subjective and objective refractions) was 2.77 D (range = 0.21-20.44 D, first quartile = 1.02 D, third quartile = 4.36 D). Sixty-eight per cent of eyes had better VA with the objective refraction and 32% of eyes gained more than one line of VA. Monocularly, objective refraction was preferred 68% of the time when looking at a distant acuity chart and 76% of the time when viewing a real-world dynamic scene.
conclusionsObjective refraction based on visual image quality derived from wavefront aberration data can be valuable in the determination of monocular spectacle refractions for individuals with keratoconus.
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.