ArticlePloS one2025
Exploring the do-it-yourself approach in subjective refraction.
Article in PloS one, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the precision and accuracy of a novel do-it-yourself (DIY) subjective refraction technique utilizing a manual tunable spherical lens and an adjustable astigmatic lens.
methodsSixty-six participants performed three self-refraction measurements using a DIY approach, while an optometrist conducted one measurement using the traditional subjective refraction methodology. The DIY approach relied on power vector analysis, where a tunable spherical lens and an adjustable astigmatic lens (Stokes lens), aligned to the participant's eye, were rotated to obtain measurements. The study assessed refractive error, visual acuity, and required measurement time. Repeatability was evaluated using the coefficient of repeatability, and agreement between methods was analyzed using limits of agreement.
resultsThe coefficients of repeatability for refractive error components (M, J0, J45) were ±0.38 D, ± 0.21 D, and ±0.21 D, respectively. Visual acuity showed a repeatability of ±0.06 logMAR, and the required time had a repeatability of ±55 seconds. The limits of agreement between the DIY approach and the traditional method were ±0.64 D, ± 0.36 D, and ±0.26 D for refractive error components, ± 0.04 logMAR for visual acuity, and ±127 seconds for required time.
conclusionsThe DIY approach can be considered a repeatable alternative among self-subjective refraction methods, although it is a first attempt and not yet fully automatic. While it cannot supplant traditional subjective refraction and further research would be required to address, it has the potential to be a viable option in certain specific cases, such as circumstances characterized by a lack of eye care professionals or humanitarian works.
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.