ArticleJournal of optometry
Correlations between clinical measures and symptoms: Report 1: Stereoacuity with accommodative, vergence measures, and symptoms.
Article in Journal of optometry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of this study was to explore associations between reduced stereoacuity and clinical measures of accommodation, vergences, and symptoms which could facilitate the development of quick and reliable screening tools.
methodsUsing a multi-stage random cluster sampling, 1211 high school students (481 males and 730 females) between 13 and 18 years of age, were selected and examined. Visual acuity, stereoacuity and suppression, refractive errors, near point of convergence, heterophoria and fusional vergences, as well as, amplitude of accommodation, accommodative response, facility and relative accommodation were evaluated. Correlations among variables and the validity of Randot stereoacuity to distinguish between children with and without defective clinical measures as well as symptomatic versus asymptomatic children were characterized by the sensitivity and specificity of the tests.
resultsThe overall mean stereoacuity was 43.9 ± 25.23 s arc, and 18.9% [95% Confidence Interval, 16.6-21.4%)] of the participants had reduced stereoacuity (defined as ≥60). Stereoacuity values and symptoms scores were worse in children with defective clinical measures. The Receiver Operation Curve showed that maximum sensitivity and specificity was obtained with near point of convergence break (≥10 cm) of (0.70 95% confidence interval: 0.63-0.77) with Randot stereoacuity test (defined as ≥60 s arc). The correlations between reduced stereoacuity and symptoms scores was moderately strong and statistically significant (Pearson's, r = 0.507, p = 0.01). The Receiver Operation Curve showed that maximum sensitivity and specificity obtained with the Convergence Insufficiency Symptoms Survey was 0.57 (95% Confidence interval = 0.53-0.62, p = 0.001), sensitivity of 90.26%, and specificity 15.26% with the Randot stereoacuity test.
conclusionReduced stereoacuity, defective clinical measures and symptoms of asthenopia were prevalent among sample of school children studied. Randot stereoacuity test could fairly distinguish between defective and normal clinical measures; though the accuracy to differentiate between symptomatic and asymptomatic school children is poor. These findings highlight the need for validation of a simple and fast screening tool in school settings. Further studies to confirm above findings will be needed.
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.