Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30383846›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

An automated and objective cover test to measure heterophoria.

Clara Mestre, Carles Otero, Fernando Díaz-Doutón, Josselin Gautier, Jaume Pujol

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Astaxanthin (AstaRealAdvances in therapy · 2025
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Eye Tracking in Optometry: A Systematic Review.Journal of eye movement research · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Visual Status in a Portuguese Population with Intellectual Disability.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

5 authors.

Clara MestreDavalor Research Center (dRC), Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Terrassa, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-0053-550X
Carles OteroDavalor Research Center (dRC), Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Terrassa, Spain.
Fernando Díaz-DoutónDavalor Research Center (dRC), Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Terrassa, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-3699-015X
Josselin GautierInria, Sophia Antipolis, France.
Jaume PujolDavalor Research Center (dRC), Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Terrassa, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Heterophoria is the relative deviation of the eyes in absence of fusional vergence. Fusional vergence can be deprived by, for example, occluding one eye while the other fixates a visual target. Then, the occluded eye will presumably deviate from its initial position by an amount that corresponds to the heterophoria. Its assessment in clinical practice is crucial for the diagnosis of non-strabismic binocular dysfunctions such as convergence insufficiency. Traditional clinical methods, like the cover test or the modified Thorington test, suffer from practitioner's subjectivity, impossibility to observe the occluding eye or unusual viewing conditions. These limitations could be overcome by using eye tracking systems to measure objectively the heterophoria. The main purpose of this study was to compare the performance of an automated and objective method to measure near heterophoria using an eye-tracker with two conventional methods: the cover-uncover test and the modified Thorington test. The eye tracking method gave us the possibility to measure the heterophoria as the deviation of the occluded eye (mimicking the cover test) or as the deviations of the occluded and fixating eyes (adhering to the theoretical definition of heterophoria). The latter method provided smaller results than the former, although on average the differences might not be clinically relevant. The proposed objective method exhibited considerably better repeatability than the two conventional clinical methods. It showed better agreement with the modified Thorington test than with the cover-uncover test, and a similar level of agreement was obtained between the two clinical methods. To conclude, the use of eye-trackers to measure heterophoria provides objective and more repeatable measures. As eye-trackers become common tools in clinical settings, their use to measure heterophoria should be the new gold standard.

Indexed as

AutomationEye Movement MeasurementsAdultEquipment DesignFemaleFixation, OcularHumansMalePhotic StimulationReproducibility of ResultsStrabismusYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID30383846
PMCPMC6211723

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.