ArticleClinical optometry2022
OculoMotor Assessment Tool: Children Compared with Adults.
Article in Clinical optometry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To provide additional normative data for the OculoMotor Assessment Tool (OMAT) for horizontal and vertical saccades and vergence jumps and to compare the results of children to adults. Methods: Participants with visual acuity of logMAR ≥0.0 (6/6) and Randot stereopsis of at least 250 sec of arc without binocular disorders were recruited. Horizontal and vertical saccades, near point of convergence (NPC), accommodation and vergence jumps were evaluated using the OMAT. Means and standard deviations were reported for all parameters in children and adults. Results: A total of 52 participants (ages 9-34, mean age 17.5 ± 7.2 years) participated in this study. Statistically significant differences were found for horizontal and vertical saccades with lower mean results in children, aged 9-18 (111.5 ± 20.9 and 112.5 ± 22.7, respectively) compared to adults, aged 19-34 (131.6 ± 23.9 and 126.2 ± 24.2, respectively) (P = 0.002 and 0.04, respectively). The mean of the last 30 seconds of both horizontal and vertical saccades were statistically significantly lower in the children's group (52.5 ± 10.6 and 52.1 ± 11.3, respectively) compared to the adults (63.2 ± 10.2 and 59.3 ± 13.4, respectively) (P = 0.001 and 0.04, respectively). The normative values for horizontal and vertical saccades were 119.6 ± 23.9 and 118.1 ± 24.1 saccades per minute, respectively. NPC break and recovery were 2.3 ± 2.3cm and 3.0 ± 3.3cm, respectively. The vergence jumps assessment was 79.3 ± 21.19 movements per minute. Conclusion: Normative values for the OMAT test were found in this study for children and adults. Assessment of endurance found children norms significantly lower for horizontal and vertical saccades compared to adults.
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.