Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40682406›Full record

ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2025

The QuickSee autorefractor reliably measures the accommodative response in children compared with the Shin-Nippon autorefractor.

Jane M Fulton, Rebecca E Leighton, Tuyishime Didier Fidele Uwacu, Bruce Moore, Julie-Anne Little

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The QuickSee autorefractor reliably measures the accommodative response in children compared with the Shin-Nippon autorefractor.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 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

5 authors.

Jane M FultonCentre for Optometry and Vision Science, School of Biomedical Sciences, Ulster University, Coleraine, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1003-3450
Rebecca E LeightonCentre for Optometry and Vision Science, School of Biomedical Sciences, Ulster University, Coleraine, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5562-9055
Tuyishime Didier Fidele UwacuCentre for Optometry and Vision Science, School of Biomedical Sciences, Ulster University, Coleraine, UK.
Bruce MooreNew England College of Optometry, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Julie-Anne LittleCentre for Optometry and Vision Science, School of Biomedical Sciences, Ulster University, Coleraine, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5242-8066

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThis study evaluated the QuickSee autorefractor for measurement of the accommodative response in a cohort of children without significant ametropia, and compared the findings to those determined using the gold-standard Shin-Nippon device.

methodsChildren aged 5-7 years were recruited. QuickSee and Shin-Nippon autorefractors were used to measure refractive status at distance (4 m) and near (50, 33 and 25 cm). Accommodative response was calculated as the difference between distance autorefraction and the value obtained for each accommodative demand. Individual accommodative response slopes were calculated from linear regression for response against demand and averaged to calculate mean slopes for each autorefractor. Inter-instrument agreement between the QuickSee and Shin-Nippon was assessed using the Bland-Altman method and 95% limits of agreement. Differences in measured accommodative responses between devices across accommodative demand were assessed by repeated measures ANOVA.

resultsForty-nine children with a median (IQR) spherical equivalent refraction of +0.38 (0.50 D) (range -0.63 to +1.50 D) participated. Median (IQR) accommodative responses for the 2, 3 and 4 D demands were 1.63 D (0.69), 2.50 D (0.75) and 3.13 D (0.63), respectively, for QuickSee, and 1.63 D (0.69), 2.50 D (0.56) and 3.25 D (0.63) for the Shin-Nippon. Mean ± SD slopes for accommodative response were 0.75 ± 0.22 and 0.83 ± 0.18 for QuickSee and Shin-Nippon, respectively (p = 0.09). Pearson's correlation showed no significant proportional bias for measures of accommodative response with either autorefractor (p ≥ 0.19). The mean difference in accommodative response measured by the QuickSee and Shin-Nippon did not differ significantly with accommodative demand (F = 1.70, p = 0.19).

conclusionThe agreement observed here demonstrates that the QuickSee shows promise in measuring accommodative response over a range of demands (2, 3 and 4 D) in a paediatric population without significant ametropia. Further research is required to determine if these findings translate over a wider range of refractive errors, and to evaluate the value of QuickSee accommodative response measures in vision screening.

Indexed as

Accommodation, OcularRefraction, OcularRefractive ErrorsVision TestsChildChild, PreschoolEquipment DesignFemaleHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsaccommodationchildrenhyperopiaQuickSeerefractive errorvision screening

Identifiers

PMID40682406
PMCPMC12682092

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.