ArticleThe British and Irish orthoptic journal2026
Comparison of Accommodative Response After Reading from Electronic Devices versus Hardcopy.
Article in The British and Irish orthoptic journal, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To assess the change in accommodative response between electronic devices and hardcopy text after prolonged reading. Method: There were 30 participants (N = 30), with a mean age of 24.29 ± 5.21 years. The accommodative response (lag or lead of accommodation, amplitude of accommodation, and accommodative facility) was measured before and after reading for 60 minutes from a printed book, a smartphone, and a laptop, with a 24-hour break between tasks. Secondary outcomes included comparisons of accommodative responses between hardcopy text and smartphone, smartphone and laptop, and laptop and hardcopy text. Results: Accommodative lag was initially 0.50 ± 0.00 D, with significant increases observed after 60 minutes of reading from a smartphone (1.25 ± 0.50 D), a laptop (1.75 ± 0.50 D), and a hardcopy text (1.50 ± 0.25 D). A greater lag was noted with laptop use compared to smartphone reading (P < 0.01). Accommodative facility was significantly reduced when reading from a laptop compared to both a smartphone (P < 0.01) and a hardcopy (P < 0.01). The binocular mean amplitude of accommodation was -7.50 ± 1.25 D with the laptop and -8.00 ± 1.00 D with the hardcopy, with a P-value of 0.085, indicating no statistically significant difference. Conclusion: Prolonged near work significantly affects accommodative function, with laptops inducing the greatest accommodative lag and reduction in facility. Hardcopy reading preserved accommodative facility better than digital devices, while amplitude of accommodation showed minimal change. These results suggest that sustained laptop use may lead to greater visual strain compared to smartphones or printed text.
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.