ArticleJournal of optometry2026
Effect of fogging lenses on accommodation using an open-view portable wavefront autorefractor.
Article in Journal of optometry, 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the effect of a + 2.00 D fogging lens on accommodative behavior during measurements with an open-view handheld wavefront autorefractor, considering refractive status and fogging duration.
methodsParticipants underwent six consecutive 10-second measurements per eye using an open-view autorefractor: three without and three with a fogging lens. Subjects were classified as myopic, emmetropic or hyperopic based on the mean spherical refraction of the right eye. Bland-Altman analysis assessed device repeatability and the effect of fogging (with vs without), both overall and by refractive group. The influence of acquisition time was evaluated by comparing the first 5 s with the full 10-second recordings.
resultsSixty-one young adults (25.02 ± 6.16 years; spherical refraction -0.80 ± 2.21 D) were included: 34.4% myopes, 42.6% emmetropes and 22.9% hyperopes. Ten-second measurements showed excellent repeatability, with mean differences near zero and 95% limits of agreement within ±0.50 D, regardless of fogging. Shortening acquisition to 5 s maintained negligible bias but increased variability by ∼20%. The fogging lens induced heterogeneous responses across refractive groups. In myopic and emmetropic eyes, most showed no change (52% and 58%), and accommodative relaxation occurred infrequently (10% and 17%). In contrast, 43% of hyperopic eyes showed accommodative relaxation, with a mean refractive shift of 0.84 D, suggesting a clinically meaningful response.
conclusionThe effect of a + 2.00 D fogging lens depends on refractive status. Routine use may provide limited additional benefits in myopic and emmetropic subjects, whereas hyperopic individuals appear more likely to benefit from its selective use.
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.