ArticleJournal of ophthalmology2026
Evaluation of a New Algorithm-Based Approach in Subjective Refraction.
Article in Journal of ophthalmology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluation of a New Algorithm-Based Approach in Subjective Refraction.Journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
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
Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate a new algorithm-based approach in subjective refraction by comparing the refractions obtained by a professional expert with those obtained using the SiviewExam Expert system on a large population. Methods: Two subjective refraction methods were compared prospectively on patients visiting Rothschild Foundation between October 2022 and May 2023: (i) A manual refraction performed by an expert using a standardized method and (ii) an automated one with the SiviewExam Expert system. Outcomes of the two subjective refractions were compared using a power vector analysis method. Power vectors are a geometric representation of spherocylindrical refractive errors in 3 fundamental dioptric components: Results: A total of 107 patients, with a mean age of 35.7 ± 11.9 years (ranging from 19 to 69 years) were included in the study. The mean SE was -2.10 ± 3.37 D (ranging from -11 D to +7.13 D). The mean differences have shown that there were no bias between the measurements for Conclusion: Our outcomes show that in a large adult population of over 100 patients with a wide range of ametropias, there were no statistically significant differences in the results for
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.