ArticleJournal of optometry
Comparison, within-session repeatability and normative data of three phoria tests.
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 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.
- Impact of Neurolens Use on the Quality of Life in Individuals With Headaches: A Randomized Double-Masked, Cross-Over Clinical Trial.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Trial
- Is My Eye Examination Really Evidenced-Based?Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- Additional accommodative controls in near heterophoria targets do not improve accommodative responses in young adults.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025Article
- Article
- Comparison of Four Methods for Measuring Heterophoria and Accommodative Convergence over Accommodation Ratio.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The Impact of the Test Dissociation on the Binocular Balance of Children.Clinics and practice · 2023Article
- Reliability and Agreement of an Integrated Platform for Intelligent Visual Function Measurement.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2023Article
- Spotlight on the Developmental Eye Movement (DEM) Test.Clinical optometry · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePhoria measurements form a routine part of the examination of binocular vision. Various studies have compared different methods of phoria measurement and their repeatability between sessions. However, no studies have accounted for within-session repeatability, and few norms have been available to date. Our aims were to assess the short-term within-session repeatability, the agreement and the comparisons between three phoria tests and the delineation of normative data.
methodThe participants comprised 315 refractive corrected participants with a normal binocular vision, with ages between 20 and 80 years. Phoria was measured using three methods: von Graefe (VG), modified Thorington (MT) and Thorighton (TH) procedures. Each measurement was taken 3 consecutive times at far and near.
resultsThe repeatability between measurements was high (0.87 to 0.96), but the relationship between tests was medium (0.407 to 0.682). About the mean bias, VG show more exo values (0.02 to 0.14 at far and 0.07 to 0.14 at near) and MT and TH similar values (-0.04 to 0.08 at far and -0.1 to 0.03 at near). The best agreement between tests was for TH and MT (LoA = 2.33 at far and LoA = 4.44 at near). Normative data for non-presbyopic were provided.
conclusionOverall, there is a high agreement between MT and TH. Conversely, VG shows more exo values at near and shows large limits of agreement. We recommend that subjective measurements of phoria can best be quantified once using the MT or TH techniques in free space and the values compared with updated norms.
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.