ArticleBMC ophthalmology2023
Comparison of the new self-contained darkroom refractive screener versus table-top autorefractor and cycloplegia retinoscopy in detecting refractive error.
Article in BMC 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of Two Novel Self-Contained Darkroom Refractive Screeners Compared with Cycloplegic Retinoscopy and a Traditional Autorefractor in Schoolchildren.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Application of artificial intelligence in myopia prevention and control.Pediatric investigation · 2025Review
- Retinoscopes: Past and present.World journal of methodology · 2024Article
- 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
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeBy comparing the results of the new self-contained darkroom refractive screener (YD-SX-A) versus table-top autorefractor and cycloplegic retinoscopy, to evaluate the performance of the YD-SX-A in detecting refractive error in children and adolescents and then judge whether it can be used in refractive screening.
methodsCross-sectional study. 1000 participants between the ages of 6 and 18 who visited the Optometry Center of the People's Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region from June to December 2022 were selected. First, participants were instructed to measure their diopter with a table-top autorefractor (Topcon KR8800) and YD-SX-A in a noncycloplegic setting. After cycloplegia, they were retinoscopy by a professional optometrist. The results measured by three methods were collected respectively. To avoid deviation, only the right eye (1000 eyes) data were used in the statistical analysis. The Bland-Altman plots were used to evaluate the agreement of diopters measured by the three methods. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves was used to analysis effectiveness of detecting refractive error of YD-SX-A.
resultsThe average age of participants was 10.77 ± 3.00 years, including 504 boys (50.4%) and 496 girls (49.6%). When YD-SX-A and cycloplegia retinoscopy (CR) were compared in the myopia group, there was no statistical difference in spherical equivalent (SE) (P > 0.05), but there was a statistical difference in diopter spherical (DS) and diopter cylinder (DC) (P < 0.05). Comparing the diopter results of Topcon KR8800 and CR, the difference between each test value in the myopia group was statistically significant (P < 0.05). In the hyperopia group, the comparison between YD-SX-A and CR showed no statistically significant differences in the DC (P > 0.05), but there were significant differences in the SE and DS (P < 0.05). In the astigmatism group, the SE, DS, and DC were statistically different, and the DC of YD-SX-A was lower than that of CR and Topcon KR8800. Bland-Altman plots indicated that YD-SX-A has a moderate agreement with CR and Topcon KR8800. The sensitivity and specificity of YD-SX-A for detecting myopia, hyperopia and astigmatism were 90.17% and 90.32%, 97.78% and 87.88%, 84.08% and 74.26%, respectively.
conclusionThis study has identified that YD-SX-A has shown good performance in both agreement and effectiveness in detecting refractive error when compared with Topcon KR8800 and CR. YD-SX-A could be a useful tool for large-scale population refractive screening.
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.