ArticleBMC ophthalmology2024
Subjective versus objective refraction in healthy young adults.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Short-Term Residual Myopic Bias Measured by Open-Field Autorefraction After 10-Second Myopic Overcorrection in Young Myopic Adults.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Validation of 3nethra specto, a wearable digital subjective refractor versus conventional subjective refraction for refractive error measurement in young adults: a comparative study.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Comparison of refractive parameters provided by a new open field aberrometer and the subjective refraction.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Observational
- Agreement and diagnostic accuracy of noncycloplegic retinoscopy, subjective and autorefraction in a young adult Ghanaian population.Ghana medical journal · 2026Article
- Mechanisms of Neuroperceptual Differences Between Subjective and Objective Refraction Based on Multimodal Imaging and Neurovisual Features.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Age-Related Clinical Agreement Between Noncycloplegic Autorefraction and Subjective Refraction: A Power-Vector Analysis.Journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns on manifest refraction in a young adult population: A large cohort study.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025Observational
- Emmetropia deviation in autorefraction compared to subjective refraction result in patients after corneal refractive surgery.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Autorefraction versus subjective refraction in high astigmatism.International journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Determination of the time of refractive stability after uneventful phacoemulsification in Indian eyes.World journal of experimental medicine · 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
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate objective and subjective refraction differences in healthy young adults.
methodsData concerning candidates for the Israeli Air Force Flight Academy, as well as active air force pilots in all stages of service who underwent a routine health checkup between the years 2018 and 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Objective refraction measured using a single autorefractometer was compared with subjective refraction measured by an experienced military optometrist during the same visit. The results were converted to power vectors (spherical equivalent [SE], J0, and J45). To interpret astigmatism using power vector values, the cylinder power (Cp) was determined.
resultsThis study included 1,395 young adult participants. The average age was 22.17 years (range, 17-39, 84.8% males). The average SE was - 0.65 ± 1.19 diopter (D) compared with - 0.71 ± 0.91D in the auto- and subjective refraction, respectively (p = 0.001). Cp was 0.91 ± 0.52D and 0.67 ± 0.40D, respectively (p < 0.001). This difference was more common in older participants (p < 0.001). J0 and J45 value differences were not significant. The absolute SE value of subjective refraction was lower in the myopic (p < 0.001) and hyperopic (p < 0.001) patients.
conclusionsYoung hyperopic participants tended to prefer "less plus" in subjective refraction compared with autorefraction. Young myopic participants tended to prefer "less minus" in subjective refraction compared with autorefraction. All participants, but mainly older participants, preferred slightly "less Cp" than that measured using autorefraction; The astigmatic axis did not differ significantly between the methods.
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.