ArticleEye (London, England)2023
Binocular visual field in adults with horizontal strabismus and driving requirements.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2023. 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, 1 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the horizontal extent of the binocular visual field (BVF) in subjects with horizontal strabismus and whether the BVF falls below the driving standard. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Adults with congenital esotropia and infantile exotropia ≤45 Prism Dioptres (PD), and subjects with orthotropia were recruited. The manifest angle of deviation was measured using a simultaneous prism cover test. Monocular Visual Field (MVF) and BVF were measured using the Esterman visual field test. Subjects with diplopia or a manifest angle of strabismus that varied by>8PD or the present of a vertical tropia >8PD were excluded.
resultsForty-nine subjects were included: 10 with orthotropia, 20 with exotropia and 19 with esotropia. The horizontal extent of BVF (degrees) was significantly smaller in esotropes (122.8 ± 18.8) than in orthotropes (141 ± 6.6) or exotropes (138.3 ± 8.3) (p < 0.01). In 6 (31.6%) subjects with an esotropia, the BVF was below the driving standard. The horizontal extent of the visual field (VF) of the amblyopic eyes of patients with esotropia (98.70 degrees, SD 19.76) and exotropia (104.75 degrees, SD16.93) were significantly smaller than those with orthotropia (121.00 degrees SD 3.16) by 22.3 degrees (p = 0.004) and 16.25 degrees (p = 0.045), respectively. The difference between the summation of MVFs and the BVF was significantly greater in orthotropes (100.6 ± 2.7) than in exotropes (68.9 ± 34.4) and esotropes (74.2 ± 20.7) (p < 0.01).
conclusionThe horizontal extent of BVF is significantly smaller and more variable in adults with congenital esotropia and may fall below the driving standard. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: Largest study on visual fields in subjects with horizontal strabismus including an orthotropic control group who do not have diplopia and who would otherwise meet the driving standard. Visual field quality was high but limitation is that visual field repeatability was not undertaken. HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE, OR POLICY: The findings of this study would suggest that people with an esotropia should be offered the opportunity to have a binocular visual field test before applying for a driving license. The DVLA may want to consider requesting people with an esotropia to have a binocular visual field test as is a requirement with other ophthalmic conditions such as glaucoma.
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.