ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2019
Validation of dynamic random dot stereotests in pediatric vision screening.
Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of Visual Acuity and Stereopsis in Older Adults: A Comparison Between a Screening Application and Clinical Standards-A Feasibility Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence-based screening for amblyopia and its risk factors: comparison with four classic stereovision tests.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Multifaceted Amblyopia Screening with blinq, 2WIN, and PDI Check.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022Article
- Rapid, accurate, multifunctional and self-assisted vision assessment and screening with interactive desktop autostereoscopy.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
- Vision Development Differences between Slow and Fast Motor Development in Typical Developing Toddlers: A Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Calibration of random dot stereograms and correlograms free of monocular cues.Journal of vision · 2020Article
- The difference of distance stereoacuity measured with different separating methods.Annals of translational medicine · 2020Article
- Stereoacuity measurement using an auto-stereoscopic smartphone.Annals of translational medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeStereo vision tests are widely used in the clinical practice for screening amblyopia and amblyogenic conditions. According to literature, none of these tests seems to be suitable to be used alone as a simple and reliable tool. There has been a growing interest in developing new types of stereo vision tests, with sufficient sensitivity to detect amblyopia. This new generation of assessment tools should be computer based, and their reliability must be statistically warranted. The present study reports the clinical evaluation of a screening system based on random dot stereograms using a tablet as display. Specifically, a dynamic random dot stereotest with binocularly detectable Snellen-E optotype (DRDSE) was used and compared with the Lang II stereotest.
methodsA total of 141 children (aged 4-14, mean age 8.9) were examined in a field study at the Department of Ophthalmology, Pécs, Hungary. Inclusion criteria consisted of diagnoses of amblyopia, anisometropia, convergent strabismus, and hyperopia. Children with no ophthalmic pathologies were also enrolled as controls. All subjects went through a regular pediatric ophthalmological examination before proceeding to the DRDSE and Lang II tests.
resultsDRDSE and Lang II tests were compared in terms of sensitivity and specificity for different conditions. DRDSE had a 100% sensitivity both for amblyopia (n = 11) and convergent strabismus (n = 21), as well as a 75% sensitivity for hyperopia (n = 36). However, the performance of DRDSE was not statistically significant when screening for anisometropia. On the other hand, Lang II proved to have 81.8% sensitivity for amblyopia, 80.9% for strabismus, and only 52.8% for hyperopia. The specificity of DRDSE was 61.2% for amblyopia, 67.3% for strabismus, and 68.6% for hyperopia, respectively. Conversely, Lang II showed about 10% better specificity, 73.8% for amblyopia, 79.2% for strabismus, and 77.9% for hyperopia.
conclusionsThe DRDSE test has a better sensitivity for the detection of conditions such as amblyopia or convergent strabismus compared with Lang II, although with slightly lower specificity. If the specificity could be further improved by optimization of the stimulus parameters, while keeping the sensitivity high, DRDSE would be a promising stereo vision test for screening of amblyopia.
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.