ArticleJournal of optometry
Optometrist-guided versus self-driven subjective refraction using tunable optics: quantifying the professional's impact.
Article in Journal of optometry. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the influence of professional guidance on a novel subjective refraction method combining a tunable liquid lens (TLL) and a Stokes lens, and to determine whether clinician involvement affects refractive accuracy, visual outcomes, or testing time compared with a participant-driven approach.
methodsSixty-six participants (18-44 years old) underwent monocular subjective refraction in one randomly selected eye under two conditions: a professional-guided refraction (ORx) performed by an experienced optometrist, and a do-it-yourself (DIY) condition where participants completed the procedure independently. Both methods used the same optical system for continuous spherical and astigmatic adjustment. Three consecutive measurements were taken under repeatability conditions. Refractive components (M, J
resultsA strong agreement was found between both methods, with slopes including the value 1 within the 95% confidence intervals. Intercepts for the spherical equivalent (M) and time did not include zero, indicating a small systematic bias: M values were slightly more positive and measurement time longer in the ORx condition. This effect was more evident in hyperopic and near-emmetropic eyes. No statistically significant differences were observed between methods (p > 0.05). Both techniques showed a learning effect with reduced time across repetitions.
conclusionDIY subjective refraction achieved comparable accuracy and visual outcomes to professional-guided procedures. While clinician supervision improved consistency and accommodative control, the DIY approach demonstrated feasibility as a complementary and accessible option for hybrid or remote refraction applications.
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.