ArticleJournal of ophthalmology2024
The Performance of Spot Photoscreener in 6 to 10 Weeks Infants in China: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Journal of ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the refractive errors measured by the Spot photoscreener (with or without cycloplegia) to cycloplegic retinoscopy in 6- to 10-week-old infants. Materials and Methods: 101 right eyes from 101 healthy infants aged 6 to 10 weeks were recruited for this cross-sectional observational study. Refractive errors were measured using Spot photoscreener before and after cycloplegia, as well as cycloplegic retinoscopy. Comparisons between the refractive measurements were performed using one-way ANOVA with the post hoc Tukey HSD test or Kruskal-Wallis test with the Steel-Dwass test according to the data normality. Pearson's correlation test and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. The agreement was evaluated using a Bland-Altman plot with 95% limits of agreement of the differences. Results: Spot photoscreener was found to underestimate the spherical equivalent by 2.33 Diopters (D) in these infants. Following the induction of cycloplegia, the spherical equivalent measured by Spot photoscreener was in excellent agreement with cycloplegic retinoscopy with the mean difference of 0.01 D. Spot photoscreener overestimated cylindrical parameter by 0.2 D with poor agreement with cycloplegic retinoscopy no matter whether cycloplegia was induced. It had good agreement with cycloplegic retinoscopy in the Conclusions: With the induction of cycloplegia, Spot photoscreener can accurately evaluate spherical equivalent in hyperopic infants with mild-to-moderate astigmatism. While it may provide valuable measurements of astigmatism, discrepancies in cylinder and axis should be taken into account.
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.