ArticleJournal of optometry
Improving interpupillary distance accuracy in the plusoptix A12R: A distance-dependent correction.
Article in Journal of optometry. 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
purposeHandheld photorefractors are increasingly used in paediatric populations, where patient cooperation and examination time are often limited. Given this widespread use, it is essential to characterise potential sources of measurement error. This study aimed to investigate the dependence between interpupillary distance (IPD) measurements and measurement distance (MD) when using Plusoptix A12R.
methodsVariability in interpupillary distance (IPD) measurements with the Plusoptix were observed during a paediatric vision screening programme (n = 67). A theoretical model predicting a linear IPD - MD relationship was developed, including a correction factor. The model was validated under controlled conditions (n = 3) using a bench testing. Then, a pilot study (n = 8) was carried out under habitual clinical conditions to assess the applicability of the correction factor. IPD measurements obtained with the Plusoptix before and after correction were compared with those obtained using a pupilometer. Agreement between methods was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis and Cohen's effect size.
resultsIn 42% of children, IPD measurements were relatively stable (SD ≤ 1 mm), whereas 9% showed fluctuations exceeding 4 mm. Bench testing data confirmed a strong linear dependence of IPD on MD (slope = 0.99), with larger IPD values obtained at shorter MDs. The pilot study showed that applying the proposed correction factor reduced IPD variability and improved agreement with pupilometer measurements.
conclusionsIPD measurements obtained with the Plusoptix A12R are affected by MD, introducing a systematic and predictable error. The application of a correction factor effectively compensates for this effect improving its clinical reliability.
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.