ArticleInternational ophthalmology2026
Agreement of wavefront-based refraction with autorefraction and manifest refraction across refractive and astigmatic profiles in refractive surgery candidates.
Article in International 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo assess the agreement between wavefront-based refraction (WFR) using a pyramidal aberrometer (PERAMIS) and conventional non-cycloplegic (NCR), cycloplegic (CR), and manifest refraction (MR) techniques across refractive types and astigmatic axes.
methodsThis cross-sectional study evaluated 111 right eyes of refractive surgery candidates. WFR from PERAMIS was compared with NCR, CR, and MR for sphere, cylinder, spherical equivalent (M), blur (B), and astigmatic vectors (J0, J45). Subgroup analyses examined ametropia status, myopia severity, and astigmatic axis.
resultsA consistent refractive trend: CR < MR < NCR < WFR was observed for M, even within the subgroups. WFR consistently yielded more myopic measurements than CR, MR, and NCR (M-MD: - 0.56 D (p < 0.001), - 0.39 D (p < 0.001), and - 0.10 D (p < 0.05), respectively). WFR demonstrated excellent correlation with NCR (ICC = 0.98), CR (ICC = 0.96), and MR (ICC = 0.97) for M. This correlation remained high for other refractive components (ICC > 0.90) except J45, where moderate correlation was observed (ICC: 0.75-0.82). The correlation was superior in myopic eyes (ICC values > 0.90 except for J45; MDs almost < 0.50 D) compared to hyperopic eyes (ICC values ranging from 0.71 (WFR-MR cylinder) to 0.93 (WFR-NCR sphere, MDs < 0.75 D). Furthermore, WFR showed an excellent correlation with NCR, CR, and MR across astigmatism types (M: ICCs: 0.93-0.99, MDs < 0.75 D). Despite the high correlation, the limits of agreement (LoA) were wide in the whole population, especially for WFR-CR (LoA for M: - 1.67:0.55 D) and WFR-MR (LoA for M: - 1.41:0.63 D), with similar patterns across all subgroups.
conclusionPyramidal WFR may be a valuable complement to conventional refractive measurements, particularly in patients with myopia. However, its tendency toward myopic bias and wide LoAs limits its interchangeability with CR or MR. Clinicians should interpret WFR cautiously, especially in hyperopic eyes, and consider confirming measurements with subjective methods. These findings support the utility of pyramidal WFR as an efficient initial estimate in refractive evaluations, especially for surgical screening, but not as a standalone replacement for traditional refraction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41973261What 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.