ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Comparative Validation of MOPTIM MRT-200 Refraction Device with 2WIN and Retinomax.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Portable sphero-cylinder refraction is useful for remote medical missions and self-checking. A novel, inexpensive, handheld optical scope with an internal vision chart and adjustable diopter lens, called the Moptim MRT-200, was therefore validated. Methods: Young, capable patients from a pediatric eye practice had dry refraction estimates with the Moptim MRT-200, Adaptica 2WIN photoscreener, and Monocular Retinomax compared with actual refined retinoscopy. Vector-converted sphero-cylinder refractions and the univariate ABCD Ellipsoid were used for comparison as well as monocular visual acuity. Results: 206 racially diverse, high-risk refractive patients with median "Ellipsoid-Gap" of 3.5 had high correlation spherical equivalent and similar ABCD Ellipsoid comparing Moptim MRT-200, 2WIN and Retinomax (Kruskal Wallis X Conclusion: Precise sphero-cylinder estimation with the Moptim MRT-200 was too complex for lay screeners and many young patients, especially compared to 2WIN and Retinomax; however, rapid estimation of spherical refraction was feasible and valid.
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.