ArticleScientific reports2024
Validation of a method to assess night myopia in a clinical setting.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A study was conducted with 115 subjects who regularly drove at night to validate a refraction protocol for detecting refractive visual changes from daytime to nighttime conditions. Objective and subjective refractions were performed in both photopic and mesopic conditions, with a dark adaptation period before the mesopic subjective refraction. The results showed that in mesopic conditions, visual acuity decreased by 0.2 logMAR units on average (p < 0.01), and there was a myopic refractive shift of - 0.36 ± 0.20 D (p < 0.01). Most subjects (92.2%) exhibited a myopic refractive shift of at least 0.12 D. Compensation of refractive shift improved mesopic visual acuity by 0.06 logMAR on average (p < 0.01) and higher refractive shifts showed higher improvement. Night Rx was preferred by 82.1% of subjects with myopic refractive shift. Gender and age did not significantly affect the refractive shift, although myopes showed a higher shift compared to emmetropes (p < 0.01). The refractive shift remained stable over time when the time slot of the day did not change (p < 0.01). Night Rx protocol proved to be a robust and accurate method for identifying drivers with refractive changes when transitioning from photopic to mesopic conditions. The high prevalence and inter-individual variability of Rx shift highlight the need of customized refraction.
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.