Observational studyBMC ophthalmology2026
Comparison of refractive parameters provided by a new open field aberrometer and the subjective refraction.
Observational study in BMC 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare and evaluate the agreement between refractive measurements obtained by the new open-field OFA-Osiris (CSO®) aberrometer and the subjective refraction.
methodsObservational, prospective, cross-sectional study involving healthy eyes. Subjects underwent a subjective refraction and ocular aberrometry using the OFA-Osiris device. Sphere, cylinder, and axis values obtained from both methods were converted to polar notation using M, J0 and J45 vectors. Refractive data from ocular aberrometry were extracted at 4 and 5 mm pupil diameters. The Wilcoxon sum-rank test was used to compare the methods, and Bland-Altman plots were used for the agreement analysis.
results183 eyes from 183 subjects (mean age: 24.9 ± 5.2 years) were included. No significant differences were found between the subjective and the objective refractive obtained with the OFA-Osiris aberrometer considering a pupil diameter of 5 mm for astigmatic parameters (J0 0.01 ± 0.19 D vs. 0.02 ± 0.26 D, J45 0.03 ± 0.21 D vs. 0.01 ± 0.24, p > 0.05) but a significant difference were observed in terms of spherical equivalent (M -1.42 ± 2.06 D vs. -1.50 ± 2.17 D, p: 0.001) When considering a pupil diameter of 4 mm for the objective refraction measurement, no significant differences were observed in any refractive parameter (M -1.42 ± 2.06 D vs. 1.42 ± 2.25, J0 0.01 ± 0.19 D vs. 0.01 ± 0.265 D, J45 0.03 ± 0.21 D vs. 0.01 ± 0.26, p > 0.05). Bland-Altman plots revealed 95% confidence intervals higher than 0.50 D.
conclusionAberrometric refraction provided by the new open-field aberrometer, OFA-Osiris, showed general good agreement with subjective refraction – particularly for a pupil diameter of 4 mm – but not being totally interchangeable by the presence of some unacceptable cases and recommending the subjective refraction as gold standard for refractive evaluation.
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.