ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2025
Subjective refraction and prescribing styles used by UK optometrists.
Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Subjective refraction and prescribing styles used by UK optometrists.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025Article
- Standardization of distance visual acuity measurement using optonet computerized vision charts: A multicentric study.Journal of optometryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the methods of subjective refraction and prescribing used by UK optometrists in routine eye examinations.
methodsFollowing a pilot study of 12 observed refractions conducted by nine optometrists, a questionnaire consisting of simple questions regarding methods used together with conditional response clinical vignettes was constructed. Paper copies were distributed to UK optometrists attending continuing professional development (CPD) courses, in addition to an online version.
resultsTwo hundred and four completed questionnaires were gathered from respondents with a mean experience of 16 years (SD, 12 years). Poor technique was defined as likely to contribute to or cause a recheck according to a previous study. Poor techniques seen included visual acuity (VA) not being measured to a full threshold level by 93% of respondents, 37% (55/149) prescribing a small oblique cylinder to an asymptomatic patient and 39% (71/183) making just one subjective change to the axis of a -1.00 D cylinder from their starting prescription before prescribing that axis change to a mildly symptomatic patient. The risk of over-plusing was identified, with 28% (N = 46) of respondents happy to prescribe a full objective +0.50 DS change to a patient with no distance-related symptoms. Symptoms, prescription change and VAs are often not reconciled, with 43% (82/189) of respondents reporting being happy to prescribe a full subjective change of -2.00 DS together with -0.75 DC for a 72-year-old patient for a relatively small VA improvement of 6/15 to 6/7.5.
conclusionsPoor subjective refraction and prescribing techniques were identified; limited measurement of VA to full threshold, risk of over-plusing/under-minusing, limited cylinder power and axis techniques and symptoms often not reconciling with changes in prescription and improvements in VA were observed. The objective prescription, particularly as determined by autorefractors, holds an exaggerated influence over some optometrists. These are elements of everyday optometry, yet require greater emphasis in CPD.
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.