ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2025
Reliability of handheld autorefractometers in patients after cataract surgery.
Article in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: Accurate postoperative refraction assessment is essential for optimal visual rehabilitation after cataract surgery. Although handheld autorefractometers (HH-ARMs) are widely used in pediatric and uncooperative patients, their reliability in adults after cataract surgery remains uncertain. This study compared refractive outcomes obtained with a HH-ARM (Mediworks V100; Mediworks, Guangzhou, China) and a TB-ARM (Canon RK-F2; Canon Inc., Tokyo, Japan) to evaluate the clinical applicability of HH-ARM in this population. Materials and methods: This prospective study included 150 eyes of 150 patients (aged 55-85 years) who underwent uncomplicated phacoemulsification with intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. At 1 month postoperatively, spherical value (SV), cylindrical value (CV), cylindrical axis (CVA), and spherical equivalent (SE) were measured under cycloplegia with both devices. Agreement between devices was evaluated using nonparametric tests and Bland-Altman analysis. Results: SV and CV differed significantly between devices (p = 0.04 and p < 0.001, respectively), while no significant differences were observed in CVA (p = 0.44) or SE (p = 0.09). Bland-Altman analysis confirmed close agreement for SE (mean difference -0.08 D; 95% limits of agreement [LoA] -1.57 D to 1.42 D). Regression analysis indicated that SE values were statistically interchangeable, whereas SV and CV were not. Conclusion: HH-ARM demonstrated clinically acceptable agreement with TB-ARM for SE values, making SE the most reliable parameter for postoperative refraction in adults. These findings underscore the clinical relevance of HH-ARM as a practical alternative for patients with limited mobility and represent a novel contribution by validating its use in a population where evidence has been scarce. Further studies comparing HH-ARM with subjective refraction and across diverse surgical contexts are warranted.
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.