2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.optom.2020.10.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Definition of refractive errors for research studies: Spherical equivalent could not be enough

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We also have to acknowledge that definitions of refractive errors are highly variable between studies, making comparisons difficult. Still, there is an increasing effort towards standardisation 31 , 32 , which remains an unmet need.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We also have to acknowledge that definitions of refractive errors are highly variable between studies, making comparisons difficult. Still, there is an increasing effort towards standardisation 31 , 32 , which remains an unmet need.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Visual impairments were defined to be equal to or below VA of 6/9. 5 in 10 studies, 30,34,35,37,39,40,42,43,48 seven studies 9,22,34,35,36,37,38 presented VA equal to or below 6/12 and two presented VA below 6/18. 25,35 Visual acuity was not recorded in seven studies (see Table 1).…”
Section: Visual Impairmentmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…46 The WHO definition of VI as VA equal or below 6/12 was used by six studies. 9,22,34,35,36,37,38 The argument of VI being better than the WHO definition is probably to detect lower refractive errors. None of the articles discussed why the definition of VI was different from WHO recommendation.…”
Section: Visual Impairmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…To determine the refractive state, the spherical-equivalent formula (SE = SE = sphere + cylinder/2) was used. A patient was considered myopic when the SE was more negative than or equal to −0.50D, hyperopic when it was more positive or equal to +0.50D, and emmetropic when it was between −0.25D and +0.25D [ 17 , 18 ].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%