ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2023
Auto-refraction versus subjective refraction in different phakic and pseudophakic conditions: the Tehran Geriatric Eye Study (TGES).
Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Agreement and diagnostic accuracy of noncycloplegic retinoscopy, subjective and autorefraction in a young adult Ghanaian population.Ghana medical journal · 2026Article
- Comparing Close-Field and Open-Field Autorefractometry and Subjective Refraction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Autorefraction versus subjective refraction in high astigmatism.International journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Instrument-based, non-cycloplegic versus cycloplegic refraction in pediatric and young adult populations (≤25 years): A systematic review and meta-analysis.Advances in ophthalmology practice and researchReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare the subjective refraction data with non-cycloplegic auto-refraction findings in the geriatric population above 60 years of age according to the different crystalline lens conditions.
methodsThis report is a part of the Tehran Geriatric Eye Study (TGES) that was conducted from January 2019 to January 2020 on elderly population 60 years of age and above in Tehran. The samples were selected by multi-stage stratified random cluster sampling. Of 3791 individual invitees, 3310 (response rate: 87.3%) participated in this study. All study participants underwent non-cycloplegic auto-refraction (auto-refractometer/keratometer Nidek ARK-510) and subjective refraction.
resultsRegarding the sphere, eyes with mixed cataract had the worst limits of agreement (LoA: -1.24 to 0.87) and the best agreement was related to the pseudophakic eyes (LoA: -0.83 to 0.54). The highest (0.27±0.31 D) and lowest (0.21±0.27 D) differences between the two methods regarding the cylinder power were observed in eyes with cortical cataract and normal eyes, respectively. The worst LoA between the two methods in measuring the cylinder power was related to the eyes with mixed cataract (LoA: -0.44 to 0.96). Regarding the J
conclusionThe auto-refractometer/keratometer Nidek ARK-510 results in the elderly with different phakic and pseudophakic conditions do not correspond well with subjective refraction findings. This discrepancy in spherical findings is more pronounced in individuals with mixed cataract than in other cases.
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.