Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42397169›Full record

Observational studyJournal of primary care & community health

Refractive Error and Visual Function in Children Under Non-cycloplegic Screening Conditions.

Ana Roque, Amélia Fernandes Nunes, Henrique Nascimento, Clara Martinez-Perez

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of primary care & community health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ana RoqueSchool of Administration, Engineering and Aeronautics (EGEA), Instituto Superior de Educação e Ciências de Lisboa (ISEC Lisboa), Alameda das Linhas de Torres, Lisboa, Portugal.
Amélia Fernandes NunesCenter for Research in Health Sciences (CICS), University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal.
Henrique NascimentoSchool of Administration, Engineering and Aeronautics (EGEA), Instituto Superior de Educação e Ciências de Lisboa (ISEC Lisboa), Alameda das Linhas de Torres, Lisboa, Portugal.
Clara Martinez-PerezApplied Physics Department (Optometry Area), Facultade de Óptica e Optometría, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-0996-5007

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BackgroundTo assess the prevalence of refractive error and reduced uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) in children, and to evaluate the extent to which visual acuity reflects refractive status under conditions similar to those used in primary care and school-based vision screening.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted in 190 children (mean age 8.35 ± 2.94 years) attending routine optometric examinations in Lisbon, Portugal. Refractive status was assessed by non-cycloplegic retinoscopy and classified using spherical equivalent. UCVA was measured with logMAR charts. Reduced UCVA was defined as >0.10 logMAR. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with reduced UCVA.ResultsHyperopia was the most common refractive status (56.8%), followed by emmetropia (22.6%) and myopia (20.5%), with a shift toward myopia with increasing age. Reduced UCVA was present in 30.5% of children and increased with age. Among children with reduced UCVA, 67.2% were not using optical correction. However, because UCVA was measured under deliberately uncorrected conditions, this finding should not be interpreted as confirmed presenting visual impairment or definitive unmet need, but rather as an indicator of potential need for further visual assessment. Notably, 68.7% of children with refractive error had normal UCVA, while 6.3% without refractive error showed reduced UCVA.ConclusionsIn this pediatric clinical sample, visual acuity alone may not reliably reflect refractive status, particularly for low-magnitude refractive errors, under non-cycloplegic, routine screening-like conditions. However, because the study included children attending routine optometric examinations rather than a school-based or population-based sample, the findings should not be interpreted as population-representative and should be generalized with caution.

Indexed as

Refractive ErrorsVision DisordersVision ScreeningVisual AcuityChildCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMalePortugalPrevalenceReproducibility of ResultsRetinoscopypediatric populationrefractive erroruncorrected visual acuityvision screeningvisual function

Identifiers

PMID42397169
PMCPMC13332273

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.