ArticleThe British and Irish orthoptic journal2026
Testing Accommodation: The Case for Nott Dynamic Retinoscopy in Orthoptic Assessments.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Accommodation is most commonly assessed using the RAF Rule. However, this subjective test has multiple sources of error, and an objective measurement of accommodation using Nott dynamic retinoscopy may be a more appropriate test to use. This study aimed to compare Nott dynamic retinoscopy with the RAF Rule and the Plusoptix PowerRef III (gold standard) after a period of close work, to determine whether this is a more suitable test for measuring accommodation. Methods: Accommodation was measured in 25 students before and after 30 minutes of close work using the RAF Rule, Nott dynamic retinoscopy, and the Plusoptix. The RAF Rule measured the amplitude of accommodation when viewing N5 print. Nott dynamic retinoscopy assessed the lead/lag of accommodation using the UC Cube with N5 print at 40 cm. The Plusoptix measured objective accommodation (slope and response) in binocular and uniocular conditions. Results: The Plusoptix and Nott dynamic retinoscopy detected accommodative lag within normal limits (under 1D), with no significant change after close work (p > 0.05). No significant change in accommodation after close work was found with the RAF Rule tested uniocularly (p > 0.05); however, a significant decrease in amplitude of accommodation from 12.85D to 11.26D was found when tested binocularly. The Plusoptix confirmed that this was not due to convergence fatigue (p > 0.05). Discussion: The measurement variations observed with the binocular RAF Rule confirm that the subjective nature of the RAF Rule test makes it more prone to errors. Nott dynamic retinoscopy is comparable to the gold standard Plusoptix; therefore, we suggest that Nott dynamic retinoscopy should be used in the orthoptic assessment of accommodation.
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.