ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2025
Autorefraction versus subjective refraction in high astigmatism.
Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Age-Related Clinical Agreement Between Noncycloplegic Autorefraction and Subjective Refraction: A Power-Vector Analysis.Journal of ophthalmology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare the subjective refraction data with auto-refraction findings in high astigmatisms.
methodsIn a cross-sectional study, sampling was done from in different geographic regions in Iran using a multistage random cluster sampling method. All study participants underwent cycloplegic auto-refraction and subjective refraction using the red-green test.
resultsIn this study, 277 eyes of 158 students aged 8 to 15y were analyzed. According to the results, the mean difference between subjective refraction and autorefraction in measuring sphere, cylinder, spherical equivalent, J0, and J45 was -0.18±0.76, -0.36±0.40, -0.36±0.79, 0.15±0.20, and 0.05±0.21 respectively. The correlation of these two refraction methods in measuring the aforementioned indices was 0.963, 0.898, 0.960, 0.931, and 0.948 respectively. The 95% limits of agreement of the two methods in measuring the above indices were -1.66 to 1.31, -1.14 to 0.42, -1.91 to 1.19, -0.24 to 0.54, and -0.36 to 0.47 respectively. The agreement between the two methods decreased with increasing cylinder power, and the best agreement was found in myopic individuals.
conclusionThe measurements obtained by autorefractometer have a significantly higher cylinder average compared to subjective refraction. However, in the cylinder range of 4-5 diopters, the values of J0 and J45 do not have a high correlation.
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.