ArticlePLOS digital health2025
Artificial intelligence applications in refractive error management: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in PLOS digital health, 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.
- Artificial Intelligence-Based Prediction of Subjective Refraction and Clinical Determinants of Prediction Error.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Myo-ODE: continuous-time trajectory reconstruction and risk prediction of high myopia via neural ordinary differential equations.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
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
Artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed healthcare, and is becoming increasingly useful in eye care. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of AI in the diagnosis, detection, prediction, progression, and treatment of refractive errors (REs). The study adhered to the PRISMA checklist to ensure transparent reporting. The following databases were searched from inception to January 2025, with an English language restriction: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar. Two independent reviewers performed study screening, data extraction, and quality assessment, with a third author resolving discrepancies. All original studies on the use of AI techniques in RE were identified and the effectiveness of these techniques was compared. A critical appraisal was conducted using the QUADAS-2 risk-of-bias tool. A meta-analysis was performed using R software (version 4.5.0). Of 6,288 records retrieved, 45 met eligibility for systematic review, with 19 included in meta-analysis. Among these 45 studies, 55.5% (25/45) applied deep learning (DL) approaches, while 44.4% (20/45) employed machine learning (ML) techniques. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and summary of receiver operating characteristic (SROC) for detection and/or diagnosis studies were 0.94 (95%CI, 0.90-0.97), 0.96 (95%CI, 0.92-0.98), 382.56 (95% CI 111.91 -1307.77) and 0.98 (95%CI, 0.91-0.97), respectively. For prediction of REs, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, and SROC were 0.87 (95%CI, 0.73-0.94), 0.96 (95%CI, 0.90-0.980), 159.94 (95% CI, 40.17-636.85) and 0.96 (95%CI, 0.85-0.95), respectively. Among studies focused on progression, performance metrics ranged from AUC = 0.845-0.99, R² = 0.613-0.964, and MAE = 0.119D-0.49D. In treatment studies, performance varied more widely, with AUC values between 0.60-0.94 and MAE from 0.17D-0.54D. Collectively, AI technologies, particularly DL and ML, achieved high diagnostic and predictive accuracy in RE management. Future research should focus on developing generalizable models trained on diverse datasets to ensure broad clinical relevance.
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.