ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Comparison of Self-Test Refraction, Autorefraction, and Subjective Refraction.
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.
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.
- Comparative Validation of MOPTIM MRT-200 Refraction Device with 2WIN and Retinomax.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.