ArticleVeterinary ophthalmology2026
Evaluation of Refractive Measurements Using a Handheld Autorefractor (Retinomax K+ Screen) Versus Streak Retinoscopy in Dogs.
Article in Veterinary ophthalmology, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the accuracy and clinical applicability of the handheld autorefractor Retinomax K+ Screen in comparison to manual streak retinoscopy in non-cyclopleged dogs.
methodsThirty-four dogs (68 eyes) of 15 different breeds underwent comprehensive ophthalmic examination and refractive assessment using streak retinoscopy and handheld autorefraction. Statistical analyses included the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Bland-Altman analysis, and Spearman's rank correlation (α = 0.05).
resultsAutorefraction was successfully performed in 57 of 68 eyes; 11 eyes were excluded due to insufficient measurement quality. Retinoscopy yielded a mean spherical equivalent of 0.13 ± 1.04 diopters (D), while autorefraction produced significantly more hyperopic values (mean 0.98 ± 1.66 D; p < 0.001). Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated wide limits of agreement (-2.52 to +4.10 D), indicating substantial variability. A moderate positive correlation was found between methods (ρ = 0.49; p < 0.001).
conclusionsThe Retinomax K+ Screen provides rapid, non-invasive refractive measurements but systematically overestimates hyperopia and exhibits considerable variability compared to retinoscopy. Despite fast acquisition, inconsistent results and reduced reliability under suboptimal conditions limit the clinical precision of the autorefractor and its use as a screening tool appears questionable under clinical conditions.
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.