ArticleBMC ophthalmology2024
Evaluation of objective and subjective binocular ocular refraction with looking in type.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feasibility, agreement, and time savings of PHANTOM open-field binocular integrated refraction versus conventional clinical refraction in healthy young adults.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Mechanisms of Neuroperceptual Differences Between Subjective and Objective Refraction Based on Multimodal Imaging and Neurovisual Features.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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the results of the Chronos binocular/monocular refraction system, that measures objective and subjective ocular refraction in one unit, to objective findings obtained from a conventional autorefractometer and a conventional subjective ocular refraction using a trial-frame in real space.
methodsTwenty-eight healthy volunteers (21.2 ± 1.5 years old) were included in this study. Objective ocular refraction was measured using two tests: the Chronos binocular/monocular refraction system under binocular conditions and a conventional autorefractometer under monocular conditions. Subjective ocular refraction was measured using three tests: Chronos binocular/monocular refraction system under binocular, monocular conditions, and trial-frame in the real space under monocular conditions. The measurement distance was set to 5.0 m for each test. All ocular refractions were converted into spherical equivalents (SEs).
resultsThe objective SE was significantly more negative with Chronos binocular/monocular refraction system under binocular condition (- 4.08 ± 2.76 D) than with the conventional autorefractometer under monocular condition (- 3.85 ± 2.66 D) (P = 0.002). Although, the subjective SE was significantly more negative with Chronos binocular/monocular refraction system under binocular condition (- 3.55 ± 2.67 D) than with the trial-frame in the real space under monocular condition (- 3.33 ± 2.75 D) (P = 0.002), Chronos binocular/monocular refraction system under monocular condition (- 3.17 ± 2.57 D) was not significantly different from that in trial-frame in real space under monocular condition (P = 0.33).
conclusionThese findings suggest that the Chronos binocular/monocular refraction system, which can complete both objective and subjective ocular refraction tests in a single unit, is suitable for screening ocular refraction, although it produces slightly more myopic results. Furthermore, subjective ocular refraction testing accuracy in Chronos binocular/monocular refraction system can be equivalent to trial-frame in real-space testing by switching from binocular to monocular condition.
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.