ArticleNPJ digital medicine2025
Real world data on digital remote refraction in a healthy population of 14,680 eyes.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2025. 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.
- Comparison of refractive parameters provided by a new open field aberrometer and the subjective refraction.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Observational
- Clinical Validation of Apollo™, A Novel Web-Based Tool for Refractive Error Self-Assessment.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- Comparing Close-Field and Open-Field Autorefractometry and Subjective Refraction.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
Refractive errors are the leading cause of preventable visual impairment, to which web-based remote refraction could contribute. We report real-world 2021-2022 data of the underlying algorithm and validated these to conventional prescriptions among healthy individuals (high visual acuity and satisfactied current refraction). Participants were 18-45 years with a spherical (S) error between -3.50 + 2.00S to -2.00 Diopter Cylinder (DC), reported as Spherical Equivalent (SEQ) in mean differences and 95% Limits of agreement. Consecutive measurements (n = 14,680) were assessed of which n = 6386 selected for validation. The mean difference was 0.01D(SD 0.69) and -0.73D(SD 0.92) for myopes and hyperopes respectively. This algorithm shows variation, nonetheless, 67% and 82% of myopes were within ±0.5 and ±0.75D. The test underestimates hyperopes (34% and 50% within ±0.5D and ±0.75D) and had inconsistencies distinguishing hyperopia. This proof-of-concept shows home testing has the potency to increase accessibility to care by delivering a valuable alternative for uncomplicated refractive assessments.
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.