ArticleOman journal of ophthalmology
Comparison of refractive examination results in children with and without cycloplegia using retinoscopy and autorefractors.
Article in Oman journal of ophthalmology. 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
contextUncorrected refractive errors are the most common cause of visual impairment and global blindness.
aimsThis study aims to assess the accuracy of refractive error measurements using streak retinoscopy and autorefraction, both with and without administering cycloplegics, in children aged 4-10 years. SETTINGS AND
designThis study is an analytical observational research with a cross-sectional design. SUBJECTS AND
methodsThis study was conducted at an eye clinic from January 2020 to August 2020, with 90 subjects. The examination utilized 1% cyclopentolate cycloplegia administered twice within 1 h, along with retinoscopy and autorefractors. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: The data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
resultsThe study results indicate that (1) there was no significant difference in the mean spherical equivalent (SE) before cycloplegia between the two instruments (
conclusionsRetinoscopy and autorefractors yield different results for refractive error correction after cycloplegia. Therefore, autorefractor examination with cycloplegia cannot be considered a substitute for retinoscopy with cycloplegia.
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.