ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2024
Pre-Cycloplegic Exam Benefit of Photoscreening and Accommodation-Relaxing Skiascopy.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Validation of MOPTIM MRT-200 Refraction Device with 2WIN and Retinomax.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Estimating the Prevalence and Severity of Isolated Small-Angle Strabismic Amblyopia.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Seeking a quick way to estimate refractions for challenging pediatric patients, we studied two non-contact methods with particular attention to accuracy and level of stress in uncovering cycloplegic hyperopia. Methods: Newly referred and follow-up pediatric eye patients had timed school bus accommodation-relaxing skiascopy (SBARS) and Plusoptix A12 (Px) photoscreener testing before cyclopentolate 1% confirmatory examinations. The ABCD ellipsoid univariate method based on relative blur and vector components was used to compare dry sphero-cylinder refraction estimates with cycloplegic. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to determine screening value. Results: Three compared refractions were attempted in 191 racially diverse children of whom 100 were age 0.2-3.9 years and 91 were 4 to 14 years. Plusoptix failed to yield a result in 21 and an additional 21 were interpreted as an excess sphere. Median spherical equivalent did not differ between Px and SBARS for 149 with Px readings but in hyperopic patients, Plusoptix uncovered 27% less hyperopia. The ellipsoid for SBARS of 0.8 was better than 2.4 for Plusoptix (Mann-Whitney p<0.001). Plusoptix was fastest (3-15 seconds) followed by SBARS (15-30 seconds) compared to 30-45 minutes for cycloplegic exam. Conclusion: Non-contact quick refractive methods enhanced confirmatory cycloplegic pediatric exam in high-risk pediatric patients.
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.