ArticleFrontiers in ophthalmology2024
Comparison of the PlusoptiX A16 and vision screener V100.
Article in Frontiers in 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.
- Agreement Between Non-Cycloplegic Photorefraction and Retinoscopy in Pediatric Refraction.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparative Validation of MOPTIM MRT-200 Refraction Device with 2WIN and Retinomax.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical relevance: This study compares a novel photoscreening device with a previously validated one in a school-age population. It highlights a tendency of the new device to underestimate myopic spherical equivalent and overestimate hyperopic cases. Purpose: To compare the PlusoptiX A16 and Vision Screener V100 photoscreeners in a study population of school-age children. Methods: One hundred and thirty-three children, with a mean age of 6.4 ± 0.5 years, were evaluated using both the PlusoptiX A16 and Vision Screener V100 photoscreeners. The measurements were taken in random order in a room with diminished ambient lighting. Results: The mean refractive error values for the M component were 0.27 ± 0.67D (PlusoptiX A16) and 0.21 ± 0.58D (Vision Screener V100). For the J0 component, means were 0.16 ± 0.38D (PlusoptiX A16) and 0.06 ± 0.33D (Vision Screener V100) and for theJ45 component the means were 0.03 ± 0.17D (PlusoptiX A16) and 0.06 ± 0.22D (Vision Screener V100). When compared both instruments, statistically significant differences were observed for the M (p=0.017) and J0 (p=0.004) components. The agreement rates between PlusoptiX A16 and Vision Screener V100 across different refractive components were 80.5% for sphere, 82.0% for cylinder, and 40.6% for axis when considering a range of ±0.75 D for sphere and cylinder and ±25.0 degrees for cylinder axis. Simultaneously considering all three conditions, the overall agreement was 73.7%. Conclusion: The Vision Screener V100, while generally aligning well with PlusoptiX A16, tends to underestimate myopic spherical equivalent, overestimate hyperopic cases, and underestimate J0 astigmatism.
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.