ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Utilization of a self-refracting system on the streets to improve vision in an urban unhoused population.
Article in BMC 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the effectiveness of the USee self-refracting eyewear kit in an urban unhoused population and identify predictors of instances in which the USee does not improve vision.
methodsIn this retrospective cross-sectional study, 110 patients (220 eyes) experiencing homelessness in Phoenix, Arizona, were evaluated before refractive correction (control) and after USee refraction. Visual acuity (VA) testing and USee refraction were performed in mobile outreach settings. Mixed-effects models were used to determine VA outcomes. USee failure was defined as USee-corrected visual acuity (USeeVA) worse than 20/40 or any worsening of USeeVA compared to uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA). Predictors of USee failure were evaluated using receiver-operating characteristic curves (AUC-ROC). Thresholds were determined using Youden's Index and Liu's method. The primary outcome was the change in binocular VA. Secondary outcomes included the rate of achieving 20/40 vision or better and determining what factors predicted USee device failure.
resultsMean binocular VA improved from 20/64 to 20/31. The proportion of patients achieving 20/40 vision or better increased from 40% to 81%. Pinhole VA alone (AUC: 0.74), cylinder alone (AUC: 0.67), and their combination (AUC: 0.81) predicted USee failure. A pinhole VA worse than 20/60 had sensitivity 0.667, specificity 0.819 (positive likelihood ratio, LR⁺: 3.69, negative likelihood ratio, LR⁻: 0.41). A cylinder threshold less than - 0.5 diopters (D) had sensitivity 0.346, specificity 0.511 (LR⁺: 0.71, LR⁻: 1.28).
conclusionsThe USee device improves vision in low-resource, transient populations. Screening using pinhole VA and cylinder may help optimize patient selection for USee-based refractive correction.
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.