ArticleCureus2024
Evaluation of Refraction Outcomes From the QuickSee Wavefront Autorefractor Versus Subjective Clinical Refractometry in Children With Restricted Access to Eye Care in Amazonas, Brazil.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Clinical Evaluation of an Affordable Handheld Wavefront Autorefractor in an Adult Population in a Low-Resource Setting in the Amazonas.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The QuickSee autorefractor reliably measures the accommodative response in children compared with the Shin-Nippon autorefractor.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Portable, Low-Cost Autorefractor in School Students with Limited Eye Care Access in Northeastern Brazil.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background This study compared the refraction measurements of the QuickSee wavefront autorefractor with those from clinical refraction measurements in preschool and elementary school children from public schools in Amazonas, Brazil. Methodology Refractometry was performed on 368 eyes from 368 healthy Brazilian public school students aged 4 to 7 years using both the QuickSee and subjective clinical methods under cycloplegia. Only right-eye data were analyzed. The results were converted into spherical equivalents and vector magnitudes for comparison. Results The difference in spherical equivalents between QuickSee and subjective clinical refractometry under cycloplegia was +0.38 ± 0.60 Diopters (D) (p < 0.0001). Along the 90° axis, the vector difference was +0.20 ± 0.33 D (p < 0.0001), and the oblique vector difference was +0.03 ± 0.22 D (p = 0.0395). Conclusions While a statistically significant difference was found between the QuickSee and subjective clinical refractometry results, the difference was not clinically meaningful. The strong agreement between these methods supports the utility of QuickSee as an effective tool for refractive assessment in children with limited access to eye care. These findings provide confidence in using QuickSee in public school settings as a reliable alternative for vision screening.
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.