ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2024
Ametropia detection using a novel, compact wavefront autorefractor.
Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of fogging lenses on accommodation using an open-view portable wavefront autorefractor.Journal of optometry · 2026Article
- Clinical Evaluation of an Affordable Handheld Wavefront Autorefractor in an Adult Population in a Low-Resource Setting in the Amazonas.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Prevalence of uncorrected refractive error in low-resource high schools in the Free State, South Africa.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the QuickSee portable autorefractor system in a pediatric population.Journal of AAPOS : the official publication of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Portable, Low-Cost Autorefractor in School Students with Limited Eye Care Access in Northeastern Brazil.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionDespite the well-known reproducibility issues of subjective refraction, most studies evaluating autorefractors compared differences between the device and subjective refraction. This work evaluated the performance of a novel handheld Hartmann-Shack-based autorefractor using an alternative protocol, which considered the inherent variability of subjective refraction.
methodsParticipants underwent an initial measurement with a desktop autorefractor, two subjective refractions (SR1 and SR2) and a final measurement with the QuickSee Free (QSFree) portable autorefractor. Autorefractor performance was evaluated by comparing the differences between the QSFree and each of the subjective refractions with the difference between the subjective refractions (SR1 vs. SR2) using Bland-Altman analysis and percentage of agreement.
resultsA total of 75 subjects (53 ± 14 years) were enrolled in the study. The average difference in the absolute spherical equivalent (M) between the QSFree and the SR1 and SR2 was ±0.24 and ±0.02 D, respectively, that is, very similar or smaller than the SR1 versus SR2 difference (±0.26 D). Average differences in astigmatic components were found to be negligible. The results demonstrate that differences between QSFree and both subjective refractions in J
conclusionsA protocol was designed and validated for the evaluation of a refractive device to account for the variability of subjective refraction. This protocol was used to evaluate a novel portable autorefractor and observed a smaller difference between the device and subjective refractions than the difference between the two subjective refraction measurements in terms of mean bias error, although the standard deviation was higher.
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.