Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40103961›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2025

Relationship between objective and subjective refraction measurements in patients with mild keratoconus.

Masoud Khorrami-Nejad, Ahmed Kamil Dakhil, Hesam Hashemian, Masoud Sadeghi, Reza Yousefi, Foroozan Narooie-Noori

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Masoud Khorrami-NejadOptometry Department, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran 1148965111, Iran.
Ahmed Kamil DakhilOptometry Department, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran 1148965111, Iran.
Hesam HashemianTranslational Ophthalmology Research Center, Farabi Eye Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran 1336616351, Iran.
Masoud SadeghiOptometry Department, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran 1148965111, Iran.
Reza YousefiTranslational Ophthalmology Research Center, Farabi Eye Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran 1336616351, Iran.
Foroozan Narooie-NooriOptometry Department, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran 1148965111, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo compare objective dry retinoscopy and subjective refraction measurements in patients with mild keratoconus (KCN) and quantify any differences.

methodsThis cross-sectional study was done on 68 eyes of 68 patients diagnosed with mild KCN. Objective dry retinoscopy using autorefractometer and subjective refraction measurements were performed. Sphere, cylinder, J0, J45, and spherical equivalent values were compared between the two techniques.

resultsThe mean age of 68 patients with mild KCN was 21.32±5.03y (12-35y). There were 37 (54.4%) males. Objective refraction yielded significantly more myopic sphere (-1.44 D

conclusionIn patients with mild KCN, objective dry retinoscopy overestimates the degree of myopia and astigmatism compared to subjective refraction. The irregular cornea in KCN likely impacts objective measurements. Subjective refraction allows compensation for irregularity, providing a more accurate correction. When determining refractive targets, the tendency of objective methods to overcorrect should be considered.

Indexed as

keratoconusobjective refractionsubjective refraction

Identifiers

PMID40103961
PMCPMC11865651

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.