ArticleBMC ophthalmology2024
Agreement in non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic refraction between a photoscreener and a calibrated autorefractor.
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 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- To Evaluate the Agreement and Repeatability of the Eyerobo VS Portable Autorefractor Cycloplegic Refraction in Children and Adolescents.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPhotoscreeners have been shown to provide excellent measurements of the refractive error. However, whether they could be used for assessing cycloplegic refraction has not been examied. This study aimed to evaluate the agreement between cycloplegic and non-cycloplegic measurements obtained using a photoscreener and stationary autorefractor, respectively.
methodsThis study included all patients undergoing routine ophthalmic examination at the Hygeia Clinic (Poland) from June to July 2022. Each patient underwent non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic refraction assessments using the 2WIN photoscreener (Adaptica SRL, Padova, Italy) and an ARK-1 stationary autorefractor ARK-1 (Nidek Co Ltd., Tokyo, Japan), respectively. Each pair of assessments was conducted in random order, and all values were determined at a vertical distance of 12 mm. The agreement between cycloplegic and non-cycloplegic measurements was assessed using paired t-tests, Bland-Altman and ABCD ellipsoids.
resultsThis analysis included 82 patients, of which 52 were female. Their mean age was 34.39 ± 13.13 years. The non-cycloplegic spherical equivalent (SE) did not differ significantly between the 2WIN (- 1.22 ± 2.45) and ARK-1 (- 1.19 ± 2.96) devices (p = 0.580). However, the cycloplegic SE values demonstrated more negative values with the 2WIN device (- 1.13 ± 2.19) than with the ARK-1 device (- 0.75 ± 3.03; p = 0.007). The non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic measurements were strongly correlated between the devices (r = 0.9473 and 0.9411, respectively). However, the correlation between their cycloplegic shifts in SE was low (r = 0.2645). Ellipsoid refraction aligned better non-cycloplegic (ARK-1 = 1.00; 2WIN = 1.74) than with cycloplegic refraction (ARK-1 = 1.43; 2WIN = 1.90).
conclusionWhile the cycloplegic measurements obtained with the 2WIN photoscreener were strongly correlated with those obtained with the ARK-1 stationary autorefractor for most of the analyzed parameters, they should not be considered interchangeable.
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.