ArticleJournal of optometry
Is reading rate in digital eyestrain influenced by binocular and accommodative anomalies?
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 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Oculomotor Vergence Eye Movement Endurance in Normal Vision via Virtual Reality-Integrated Eye Tracking.Journal of eye movement research · 2026Article
- Binocular Vision Anomalies in Scotland at Age 3.5-5.5 Years: An Epidemiological Study.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- Refractive Error Changes at Near After Smartphone Use.Beyoglu eye journal · 2026Article
- A Review of Digital Eye Strain: Binocular Vision Anomalies, Ocular Surface Changes, and the Need for Objective Assessment.Journal of eye movement research · 2025Review
- Validation of Binocular Vision and Ocular Surface Assessment Tools in Digital Eye Strain Syndrome: The DESIROUS Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- The status of binocular visual functions among Taiwan high-tech industry engineers and its correlation with computer vision symptom.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The Effect of Prism Presentation Order on Near Vertical Fusional Vergence Ranges of Normal Young Adults.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
- Spotlight on Digital Eye Strain.Clinical optometry · 2023Review
- Can Nutrition Play a Role in Ameliorating Digital Eye Strain?Nutrients · 2022Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSymptoms experienced when using digital devices are known as digital eyestrain (DES) or computer vision syndrome. They can be categorised as either external (associated with dry eye) or internal (related to refractive, accommodative or binocular vision anomalies). In a large cohort of adults with DES, we investigate the prevalence of binocular and accommodative anomalies, contrasting different diagnostic approaches, to evaluate potential mechanisms for the benefit from +0.75D addition lens that has been previously reported.
methodsParticipants (20-40y) were selected using the Computer Vision Syndrome Questionnaire (CVS-Q) tool as suffering with DES. A comprehensive eye examination was given to each participant, and this paper concentrates on "internal factors", detected with a refraction and comprehensive testing of binocular and accommodative functions. The effects of low-powered addition lenses (+0.50D, +0.75D, +1.25D; and plano controls) were assessed by double-masked testing with the Wilkins Rate of Reading Test (WRRT) and by subjective preference.
resultsAs previously reported, most participants showed a subjective preference for one of the three convex lenses we used, with +0.75D chosen most frequently. Performance at the WRRT was significantly improved with +0.50D and +0.75D, but not +1.25D. Using a variety of diagnostic criteria, there were no strong associations between WRRT results or CVS-Q scores and any binocular or accommodation functions. The one finding of significance is that a disproportionate number of participants who benefited from adds had an eso-fixation disparity on the near Mallett unit, although this only affected 5% of the population.
conclusionsDES is a collection of diverse symptoms that have a multifactorial aetiology. In the sample described here, binocular and accommodative anomalies do not seem to be a major cause of DES. Nevertheless, in view of the multifactorial aetiology it is recommended that patients with the symptoms of DES are assessed with a comprehensive eye examination. Patients with an esophoric fixation disparity on the near Mallett unit are particularly likely to benefit from near additions.
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.