ArticleBMJ open ophthalmology2026
Validation of 3nethra specto, a wearable digital subjective refractor versus conventional subjective refraction for refractive error measurement in young adults: a comparative study.
Article in BMJ open 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRefractive errors cause significant preventable visual impairment globally, particularly in underserved areas. Conventional subjective refraction remains the gold standard but proves examiner-dependent, time-consuming and challenging in high-volume settings. The 3nethra Specto, a wearable digital subjective refractometer, offers rapid refractive assessment. This study evaluates its accuracy and repeatability versus conventional methods.
methodsA prospective comparative study was conducted on 135 subjects who underwent both conventional subjective refraction and 3nethra Specto assessment. Spherical (S), cylindrical (C) and axis measurements were analysed using power vector transformation (J₀, J₄₅). Primary predictive validity was assessed using univariate general linear models (GLMs) (IBM SPSS V.25.0) with age/sex as covariates. Model fit was evaluated via F-statistics, R² and residual SD. Instrument repeatability used GLM Repeated Measures, agreement assessed via Bland-Altman plots, keeping significance at p<0.05. Patient and examiner feedback on the instrument was captured using the User Experience questionnaire.
resultsOf 135 adults (mean age 31.5±8.9 years; 60% male), compound myopic astigmatism predominated (45%). 3nethra Specto measurements closely matched subjective refraction (sphere: -1.02 D vs -0.99 D; cylinder: -0.49 D vs -0.83 D; M: -1.26 D vs -1.24 D). GLM analysis showed excellent predictive validity (all p<0.001; R² 0.914 to 0.994; residual SD 0.084 D to 0.228 D). Bland-Altman plots confirmed 95% limits of agreement of -0.39 D to +0.47 D for M and -0.62 D to +0.64 D for J₀ and -0.32 D to +0.35 D for J₄₅. Device repeatability was high (all F>96, p<0.001; R²≥0.956; residual SD≤0.148 D). Patients rated subjective refraction higher for comfort/enjoyability but found 3nethra more inventive/exciting; examiners preferred 3nethra for efficiency, speed, innovation and ease of use.
conclusionsThe 3nethra Specto wearable liquid lens refractor demonstrated excellent agreement and repeatability with traditional subjective refraction across all refractive parameters, confirming clinical equivalence. Positive patient and examiner feedback highlighted its innovation, efficiency and usability. This device offers a reliable alternative for routine refractive assessment in clinical settings.
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.