Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42073488›Full record

ArticleLife (Basel, Switzerland)2026

Agreement Between Non-Cycloplegic Photorefraction and Retinoscopy in Pediatric Refraction.

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

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. 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

5 authors.

Ana RoqueSchool of Administration, Engineering and Aeronautics (EGEA), Instituto Superior de Educação e Ciências de Lisboa (ISEC Lisboa), Alameda das Linhas de Torres, 179, 1750-142 Lisboa, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-5905-6808
Amélia Fernandes NunesCenter for Research in Health Sciences (CICS), University of Beira Interior, 6200-506 Covilhã, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-5001-3534
Henrique NascimentoSchool of Administration, Engineering and Aeronautics (EGEA), Instituto Superior de Educação e Ciências de Lisboa (ISEC Lisboa), Alameda das Linhas de Torres, 179, 1750-142 Lisboa, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-6779-3418
Niaoo GroupSchool of Administration, Engineering and Aeronautics (EGEA), Instituto Superior de Educação e Ciências de Lisboa (ISEC Lisboa), Alameda das Linhas de Torres, 179, 1750-142 Lisboa, Portugal.
Clara Martinez-PerezApplied Physics Department (Optometry Area), Facultade de Óptica e Optometría, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 15705 Santiago de Compostela, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-0996-5007

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate assessment of refractive error in children is essential for clinical decision-making, yet agreement between non-cycloplegic techniques remains uncertain, particularly due to differences in accommodative demand. This study evaluated the agreement between static retinoscopy and handheld photorefraction for measuring spherical power, cylindrical power, and spherical equivalent in children aged 4-16 years and assessed whether agreement varied by refractive status. In this cross-sectional observational study, 193 children underwent objective refraction during a single visit using non-cycloplegic static retinoscopy (distance fixation) and handheld infrared photorefraction (~1 m fixation). Inter-method differences were analyzed using Bland-Altman plots, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), mean absolute error (MAE), and non-parametric tests. Photorefraction showed a statistically significant myopic shift compared with retinoscopy for spherical power (-0.16 D), cylindrical power (-0.24 D), and spherical equivalent (-0.28 D). Agreement was moderate in statistical terms for spherical equivalent (ICC = 0.73) and spherical power (0.71), and lower for cylindrical power (0.46); however, wide limits of agreement indicate clinically relevant variability. MAE for spherical equivalent was 0.80 D overall, with 45.1% of measurements within ±0.50 D, and varied by refractive status, being lowest in emmetropic eyes and higher in hyperopic and myopic eyes. These findings indicate that, under non-cycloplegic conditions, photorefraction shows modest mean differences but substantial individual variability, likely influenced by differences in accommodative demand between techniques. While suitable for pediatric vision screening, photorefraction should not be considered interchangeable with retinoscopy for individual refractive assessment.

Indexed as

accommodationpediatric optometryphotorefractionrefractive errorretinoscopyvision screening

Identifiers

PMID42073488
PMCPMC13117380

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.