ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Feasibility, agreement, and time savings of PHANTOM open-field binocular integrated refraction versus conventional clinical refraction in healthy young adults.
Article 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPHANTOM is a novel open-field binocular integrated refraction system that uses device-specific binocular target presentation and lensless refractive simulation to perform objective refraction, subjective refraction, and visual acuity testing in one device. However, evidence is limited regarding how corrective refraction derived from such systems compares with prescriptions obtained using conventional subjective refraction combined with binocular balancing. We aimed to compare refractive correction determined using the conventional method with that obtained using PHANTOM and evaluate its potential role as an adjunctive tool for spectacle prescription.
methodsWe compared PHANTOM with a conventional clinical refraction workflow. Twenty healthy young adults (20.3 ± 0.9 years) were subjected to both conditions in a randomized order, with examinations performed by one experienced orthoptist; right eye data were analyzed. Conventional refraction comprised monocular autorefraction plus subjective refraction with prism-dissociated duochrome binocular balancing. Agreement (PHANTOM–conventional) was assessed using the Bland–Altman analysis.
resultsObjective spherical equivalent (SE) was − 3.09 ± 2.25 D vs. −3.10 ± 2.24 D (bias 0.02 D; 95% limits of agreement [LoA] − 0.55 to 0.58). Subjective SE was − 2.78 ± 2.41 D vs. −2.79 ± 2.39 D (bias 0.01 D; LoA − 0.56 to 0.58) with no proportional bias. Proportional bias was detected in objective J45 (p = 0.01) and subjective J0 (p = 0.006). Visual acuity was − 0.17 ± 0.02 vs. −0.16 ± 0.04 logMAR (bias − 0.01; LoA − 0.10 to 0.08). Examination time was 199.7 ± 33.9 vs. 527.6 ± 70.0 s (61.6% shorter; p < 0.0001).
conclusionsIn healthy young adults under controlled study conditions, participants completed the integrated PHANTOM protocol and achieved visual-acuity endpoints comparable to those obtained with conventional refraction. Under these conditions, SE agreement was generally good and the examination time was substantially reduced, whereas astigmatism components warrant further investigation. Further validation in broader clinical populations is required before these findings can be generalized.
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.