ArticleJournal of medical systems2026
Clinical Validation of Apollo™, A Novel Web-Based Tool for Refractive Error Self-Assessment.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Refractive errors are a leading cause of visual impairment, with substantial economic impact. Digital refraction systems may help improve access to eye care, especially for underserved populations. Considering their relevance, this study evaluated the Apollo™, a novel web-based system for self-assessed refractive error measurement, in estimating spherical equivalent (SEQ) compared to manifest refraction (also known as dry refraction or dynamic refraction) performed by experienced ophthalmologists. A prospective, single-center, single-blind, non-randomized study was conducted with 63 eyes of 64 healthy adults aged 18-40 years. Each participant underwent both manifest subjective refraction and digital refraction using Apollo™. Exclusion criteria included astigmatism exceeding 3.00 diopters (D) in absolute value and SEQ beyond - 4.00 D to + 4.00 D. Primary outcome was the comparison of SEQ between methods. No significant difference was observed between SEQ from Apollo™ (mean - 1.20 ± 1.11 D) and manifest refraction (mean - 1.17 ± 1.14 D; p = 0.67). Bland-Altman analysis showed a bias of 0.03 ± 0.90 D, with 95% limits of agreement (LOA) from - 1.73 to 1.78 D. LOA was narrower in myopic SEQ stratum (-1.48 to 1.35D). The ICC for the total sample SEQ was 0.69 (95% CI: 0.52-0.79), and for the myopic SEQ subgroup was 0.74 (95% CI: 0.58-0.84), indicating moderate to good reliability. The accuracy for detecting the sign of SEQ was 82.5% in the overall cohort and 96.2% in the myopic subgroup. Regression analysis revealed a proportional bias, with the system tending to underestimate refractive error as the magnitude of myopia increases (β = -0.27, p = 0.005). In conclusion, Apollo™ demonstrates moderate-to-good reliability and high diagnostic accuracy (96%) in categorizing refractive status among myopes. These results highlight its potential as a valuable digital screening tool, warranting further large-scale studies to refine its predictive algorithm.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41903036What 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.