ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2026
Effect of light barrier and type of refractive error on the performance of a portable wavefront aberrometer-based auto refractometer.
Article in Indian journal of 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAccurate and accessible autorefractors are essential for refractive error assessment, particularly in resource-limited settings. This study evaluates the accuracy and reliability of Instaref R20 with a light barrier (Instaref R20 LB) compared to a tabletop autorefractor (AR) and subjective refraction (SR) in an adult population. A light barrier (wearable polaroid filter) was used to reduce ambient illumination and stabilize pupil size, thereby improving measurement reliability under bright conditions.
methodsA prospective study was conducted at a tertiary eye institute in Mumbai, enrolling 200 adults (mean age: 44.33 ± 13.97 years). All the participants underwent a comprehensive eye examination including objective refraction, subjective acceptance, and anterior and posterior segment evaluation. Non-cycloplegic refraction was assessed using Instaref R20, Instaref R20 LB, AR, and SR. Agreement between methods was analyzed using Bland-Altman plots, assessing power vector components (M, J0, J45). Statistical comparisons were performed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
resultsInstaref R20 LB demonstrated strong agreement with SR (M: 0.10D, P = 0.13; J0: -0.05D, P = 0.05; J45: 0.01D, P = 0.44), while Instaref R20 showed slight variance (M: 0.17D, P < 0.001). The agreement within ± 0.50D of SR was 64.64% (M), 85.35% (J0), and 89.39% (J45). Under bright illumination, Instaref R20 failed to capture readings in six cases, whereas Instaref R20 LB obtained stable measurements in all participants, demonstrating superior reliability in bright environments. Subgroup analysis showed higher accuracy in myopic eyes, while AR exhibited significant deviations in hyperopes.
conclusionThe Instaref R20 LB improves measurement accuracy and reliability, particularly under bright illumination. Its strong agreement with SR and portable design make it a viable tool for refractive error assessment in resource-constrained 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.