Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33828743›Full record

ArticleJournal of eye movement research2019

Variance components affecting the repeatability of the alternating cover test.

Marius M Paulus, Andreas Straube, Thomas Eggert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of eye movement research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Marius M PaulusUniversity Hospital, LMU Munich, Germany.
Andreas StraubeUniversity Hospital, LMU Munich, Germany.
Thomas EggertUniversity Hospital, LMU Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In within-subject and within-examiner repeated measures designs, measures of heterophoria with the manual prism cover test achieve standard deviations between 0.5 and 0.8 deg. We addressed the question how this total noise is composed of variable errors related to the examiner (measurement noise), to the size of the heterophoria (heterophoria noise), and to the availability of sensory vergence cues (stimulus noise). We developed an automated alternating cover test (based on a combination of VOG and shutter glasses) which minimizes stimulus noise and has a defined measurement noise (sd=0.06 deg). In a within-subject design, 19 measures were taken within 1.5 min and multiple such blocks were repeated either across days or across 45 min. Blocks were separated by periods of binocular viewing. The standard deviation of the heterophoria across blocks from different days or from the same day (sd=0.33 deg) was 6 times larger than expected based on the standard deviation within the block. The results show that about 42% of the inter-block variance with the manual prism cover test was related to variability of the heterophoria and not to measurement noise or stimulus noise. The heterophoria noise across blocks was predominantly induced during the intermediate binocular viewing periods.

Indexed as

cover testeye movementeye trackinggazeHeterophoriareliabilityvergence

Identifiers

PMID33828743
PMCPMC7880145

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.