Evaluation of Portable, Low-Cost Autorefractor in School Students with Limited Eye Care Access in Northeastern Brazil.

Francisco Carlos de Castro Neto, Ricardo Noguera Louzada, Daniel Oliveira Dantas, Dillan Cunha Amaral, Claudio do Carmo Chaves Filho, Milton Ruiz Alves

Abstract read

PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher

In one paragraph

Article in Vision (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

1citing 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

1 citing paper 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) · 2025
Article

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.

Francisco Carlos de Castro NetoDivision of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo 05403-000, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0009-0004-0883-1762

Ricardo Noguera LouzadaDivision of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo 05403-000, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-9610-5768

Daniel Oliveira DantasDepartment of Computer Science, Federal University of Sergipe, São Cristóvão 49107-230, SE, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-0142-891X

Dillan Cunha AmaralOphthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro 21941-617, RJ, Brazil.ORCID 0009-0002-7948-154X

Claudio do Carmo Chaves FilhoDivision of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo 05403-000, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0009-0002-1744-5017

Milton Ruiz AlvesDivision of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo 05403-000, SP, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study compared the refraction measurements of the ClickCheck™ device (CCD), Topcon KR-8000, and subjective clinical refractometry (SCR) in Brazilian public school students with limited access to eye care. Eighty-seven eyes of healthy students aged 7 to 17 underwent refractometry using the CCD, Topcon KR-8000, and SCR methods under cycloplegia, with only the right-eye data analyzed. For comparison, the measurements were converted into spherical equivalents (SEs) and vector magnitudes. The mean SE difference between CCD and Topcon KR-8000 was -0.27 ± 0.58 (

Indexed as

comparative studyequipment designocularrefraction

Identifiers

PMID40137929

DOI10.3390/vision9010017

PMCPMC11946441

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

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.