ArticleVision development and rehabilitation2020
Comparisons of proximal vergence measures.
Article in Vision development and rehabilitation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Interaction between Vergence and Accommodation Cues in the Assessment of Fusional Vergence Range.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Functional magnetic resonance imaging activation for different vergence eye movement subtypes.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2023Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundProximal vergence is defined as a vergence eye movement subtype driven by an "awareness of nearness". The purpose of this experiment was to compare values of proximal vergence calculated with and without measures of accommodation to assess the clinical utility of each measurement method.
methodsThirteen participants between the ages of 22 and 37 (mean = 28.5 ± 4.5 years) were enrolled. The distance and near heterophoria were measured using the Modified Thorington technique. The near heterophoria was measured under three randomized viewing conditions (no lenses, +1.00D lenses, +2.50D lenses). Refractive error was measured with an autorefractor. Proximal vergence was calculated as the difference in calculated (far-near) and gradient (+1.00) stimulus AC/A ratios (stimulus AC/A differencing method), the difference in calculated and gradient response AC/A ratios (response AC/A differencing method), and the change in vergence from distance to near with the +2.50D lenses (uncorrected +2.50D method). This latter value was also corrected for any active accommodation with +2.50D lenses (corrected +2.50D method).
resultsThe mean proximal vergence values (Δ) were 7.82 ± 5.98 (stimulus AC/A differencing method), 8.29 ± 3.30 (response AC/A differencing method), 6.23 ± 3.52 (uncorrected +2.50D method), and 5.13 ± 2.98 (corrected +2.50D method). The only comparison that showed both a significant correlation (p<0.05) and a non-significant difference from the paired t-test (p>0.05) was that between the stimulus AC/A differencing method and the uncorrected +2.50D method.
conclusionsWhen response accommodation was accounted for, differences occurred in the mean proximal values obtained with the various methods. The means of the methods most likely to be used clinically (stimulus AC/A differencing method and uncorrected +2.50D method) were similar, although some individuals demonstrated significant differences between these methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33283044PMC7717499What 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.