Evidence mapPaperPMID 39310243Full record

ArticleWorld journal of methodology2024

Retinoscopes: Past and present.

Mutali Musa, Ehimare Enaholo, Babatunde Ismail Bale, Carlo Salati, Leopoldo Spadea, Marco Zeppieri

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

6 authors.

Mutali MusaDepartment of Optometry, University of Benin, Benin 300283, Nigeria.
Ehimare EnaholoDepartment of Ophthalmology, Africa Eye Laser Centre, Benin 300105, Nigeria.
Babatunde Ismail BaleDepartment of Optometry, University of Benin, Benin 300283, Nigeria.
Carlo SalatiDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital of Udine, Udine 33100, Italy.
Leopoldo SpadeaEye Clinic, Policlinico Umberto I, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome 00142, Italy.
Marco ZeppieriDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital of Udine, Udine 33100, Italy. markzeppieri@hotmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRetinoscopy is arguably the most important method in the eye clinic for diagnosing and managing refractive errors. Advantages of retinoscopy include its non-invasive nature, ability to assess patients of all ages, and usefulness in patients with limited cooperation or communication skills.

aimTo discuss the history of retinoscopes and examine current literature on the subject.

methodsA search was conducted on the PubMed and with the reference citation analysis (https://www.referencecitationanalysis.com) database using the term "Retinoscopy," with a range restricted to the last 10 years (2013-2023). The search string algorithm was: "Retinoscopy" (MeSH Terms) OR "Retinoscopy" (All Fields) OR "Retinoscopes" (All Fields) AND [(All Fields) AND 2013: 2023 (pdat)].

resultsThis systematic review included a total of 286 records. Publications reviewed iterations of the retinoscope into autorefractors, infrared photo retinoscope, television retinoscopy, and the Wifi enabled digital retinoscope.

conclusionThe retinoscope has evolved significantly since its discovery, with a significant improvement in its diagnostic capabilities. While it has advantages such as non-invasiveness and broad applicability, limitations exist, and the need for skilled interpretation remains. With ongoing research, including the integration of artificial intelligence, retinoscopy is expected to continue advancing and playing a vital role in eye care.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceAutorefractorOphthalmologyOpticsRefractive errorsRetinoscopy

Identifiers

PMID39310243
PMCPMC11230066

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.