Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40170979›Full record

ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025

Comparison of Self-Test Refraction, Autorefraction, and Subjective Refraction.

Abraão Ferreira de Sousa Neto Kós, Bernardo Kaplan Moscovici, Cesar Vilar, Mario Augusto Pereira Dias Chaves, Maíra Gomes Barbosa Da Silva, Maurício Agne Neuwald, André Lins De Medeiros, Jonathan Clive Lake, Antonio Francisco Pimenta Motta, Patrick Frensel de Moraes Tzelikis and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 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.

  1. 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

14 authors.

Abraão Ferreira de Sousa Neto KósHospital Oftalmologico de Brasília - HOB, Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil.
Bernardo Kaplan MoscoviciDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Federal University of Sao Paulo UNIFESP, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-4441-4304
Cesar VilarHospital Oftalmologico de Brasília - HOB, Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil.
Mario Augusto Pereira Dias ChavesDepartment of Ophthalmology, Hospital Oftalmologico da Paraiba, Paraiba, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-4491-3330
Maíra Gomes Barbosa Da SilvaHospital Oftalmologico de Brasília - HOB, Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil.
Maurício Agne NeuwaldHospital Oftalmologico de Brasília - HOB, Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil.
André Lins De MedeirosHospital Oftalmologico de Brasília - HOB, Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil.
Jonathan Clive LakeHospital Oftalmologico de Brasília - HOB, Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil.
Antonio Francisco Pimenta MottaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Renato Ambrosio Research Center CEORA, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Patrick Frensel de Moraes TzelikisHospital Oftalmologico de Brasília - HOB, Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-7182-8073
Pedro Carlos CarricondoDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Sao Paulo HC-FM USP, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-2916-205X
Larissa GouveaStorm Eye Institute, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Walton NoséDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Federal University of Sao Paulo UNIFESP, São Paulo, Brazil.
Wilson Takashi HidaHospital Oftalmologico de Brasília - HOB, Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-9043-9591

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the performance of a self-refraction device (EyeQue Vision Check 2, EyeQue, USA) with autorefraction (OPD-Scan III, NIDEK) and subjective cycloplegic refraction in measuring refractive errors. Methods: This descriptive study included 80 eyes from 40 patients. Measurements were obtained using the portable EyeQue device, OPD-Scan III, and subjective cycloplegic refraction performed by an experienced examiner. Spherical equivalent (SE), cylindrical power, and axis values were analyzed using power vector decomposition (M, J0, J45) to improve accuracy in comparing methods. The main outcome was the agreement between self-refraction, autorefraction, and subjective refraction. Results: The EyeQue device showed lower variability and greater homogeneity in spherical measurements but exhibited lower precision for cylindrical power and axis than subjective refraction. Power vector analysis revealed that EyeQue overestimated spherical equivalent (M) and produced higher J0 values, suggesting a tendency to alter cylindrical correction. Although comparable to OPD-Scan in spherical refraction, EyeQue demonstrated inconsistencies in astigmatism correction, particularly in J45 components. Conclusion: The EyeQue device is a promising tool for large-scale screenings due to its affordability and portability. However, its limitations in astigmatism and axis measurements indicate that subjective refraction should complement rather than replace it. Therefore, further refinement and validation in diverse populations are recommended.

Indexed as

autorefractionpower vector analysisself-refractionsubjective refractionteleophthalmology

Identifiers

PMID40170979
PMCPMC11960455

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.