ArticleJournal of optometry
Assessment of an algorithm-based combination device for objective and subjective refraction: accuracy and efficiency across examiner experience levels.
Article in Journal of optometry. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeA novel combination device for objective and subjective refraction was assessed regarding repeatability, reproducibility, validity, vision quality, and timing for experienced and untrained examiners.
methodsSix examiners (each three trained optometrists and untrained examiners) examined 33 healthy participants for objective and subjective refraction. The ZEISS VISUCORE 500 (VC) objective and subjective refraction combination device with an algorithm-based guided and regular custom mode was compared to a conventional control procedure (wavefront aberrometer and phoropter).
resultsFor the objective measurement of spherical equivalent refractive error (SE), VC shows good repeatability (≤ ±0.29 D) and reproducibility (≤ ±0.28 D) across all examiners versus control (±0.34 D and ≤ ±0.30 D, respectively), measured only by trained examiners. VC measures slightly negative objective refractions for SE with a mean difference (MD) and 95% limits of agreement (LoA) of -0.07 ± 1.24 D analyzed for a trained examiner. Subjective refraction for VC guided and custom mode showed good repeatability (≤ ±0.64 D) and reproducibility (≤ ±0.59 D) regarding SE for the examiner level. The results were similar to control (±0.54 D and ±0.51 D, respectively) with MD and LoA of +0.12 ± 0.67 D and +0.14 ± 0.66 D for VC guided and custom for trained examiner level. No significant differences were observed in best-corrected visual acuity across the three refraction workflows (all p > 0.05). The VC guided procedure was the most time-efficient, requiring less than 5 min of chair time.
conclusionsThe tested combination refraction device provides reliable and efficient objective and subjective refraction measurements across trained and untrained examiners.
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.