ArticleJournal of ophthalmic & vision research
Binocular Function in Different Gaze Positions.
Article in Journal of ophthalmic & vision research. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate varied aspects of binocular function in multiple gaze positions. Methods: In 2018, this cross-sectional study was conducted on 21 participants (male = 11) with an age range of 19-25 years. Having emmetropia and 10/10 visual acuity in both eyes were conditions of the inclusion criteria for the cross-sectional study. The following aspects of binocular function including amplitude of accommodation (AA), near point of convergence, near phoria, and monocular accommodative facility were evaluated in five gazes (primary, upward, downward, left, and right) for all subjects. Results: Near point of convergence values showed significant differences in all gaze positions ( Conclusion: The results of this study indicated variations that exist in the convergence and accommodation reflex functions in multiple gaze positions, which proved to be more prominent in the convergence system. Although the accommodative sufficiency evaluation was inconsistent among the multiple gaze positions, the accommodative facility evaluation was consistent in all gazes.
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.