ArticleCureus2023
Comparing the Effectiveness of Smartphone Applications in the Measurement of Interpupillary Distance.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Simulated Workflow Feasibility Evaluation of a Web-Based Periorbital Measurement Platform: Development and Usability Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- A Comparative Analysis of Interpupillary Distance Measurement Techniques Evaluation in Modern Times: From Rulers to Apps.Clinical optometry · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose To determine the accuracy of three smartphone applications in the measurement of interpupillary distance (IPD). Methods This study compared measurements from three smartphone applications to measurements obtained by a single trained examiner using a digital pupilometer in 44 subjects. The mean absolute error (MAE) of IPD prediction by each application was compared. Additionally, the frequency at which each application measured IPD within ± 0.05 mm, ± 0.10 mm, ± 0.25 mm, ± 0.50 mm, ± 0.75 mm, and ± 1.00 mm of the digital pupilometer measurement was determined. Results The Eye Measure (Dotty Digital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia) and Warby Parker (Warby Parker, New York, New York) applications had significantly lower MAE of IPD measurements (0.511364 mm) compared to the PDCheck AR (EyeQue Corp., Newark, California) application (1.375 mm). The Warby Parker application most frequently obtained accurate IPD measurements within the following ranges: ± 0.05 mm, ± 0.10 mm, ± 0.25 mm, ± 0.50 mm, ± 0.75 mm, and ± 1.00 mm. Conclusion Of the three smartphone applications compared in this study, the Warby Parker application performed to the highest degree of accuracy and may serve as an adequate alternative when conventional IPD measurement methods are either unavailable or unable to be performed accurately.
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.