ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2023
Monovision Correction Preference and Eye Dominance Measurements.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Halo Measurements in Simulated Multifocal Intraocular Lenses.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- Presbyopia: Current Perspectives and Prospects for Patients.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Review
- The Influence of the Level of Monovision upon Early Outcomes Following the Bilateral Implantation of an Enhanced Monovision Intraocular Lens.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Assessing Ocular Dominance: Rethinking the Current Paradigm.Journal of cataract and refractive surgery · 2025Article
- Visual simulation of intraocular lenses: technologies and applications [Invited].Biomedical optics express · 2025Review
- Impact of Intraocular Lens Design on Refractive Endpoint Selection: A Call for a New Paradigm.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To propose new methods for eye selection in presbyopic monovision corrections. Methods: Twenty subjects with presbyopia performed two standard methods of binary eye dominance identification (sensory with +1.50 diopters [D ]and +0.50 D and sighting with "hole-in-the-card") and two psychophysical methods of perceived visual quality: (1) the Preferential test, 26 natural images were judged with the near addition in one eye or in the other in a 2-interval forced-choice task, and the Eye Dominance Strength (EDS) defined as the proportion of trials where one monovision is preferred over the other; (2) the Multifocal Acceptance Score (MAS-2EV) test, the perceived quality of a natural images set (for 2 luminance levels and distances) was scored and EDS defined as the score difference between monovision in one eye or the other. Left-eye and right-eye dominance are indicated with negative and positive values, respectively. Tests were performed using a Simultaneous Vision Simulator, which allows rapid changes between corrections. Results: Standard sensory and sighting dominances matched in only 55% of subjects. The Preferential EDS (ranging from -0.7 to +0.9) and MAS-2EV EDS (ranging from -0.6 to +0.4) were highly correlated. Selecting the eye for far in monovision with the MAS-2EV, sensory, or sighting tests would have resulted in 79%, 64%, and 43% success considering the Preferential test as the gold standard. Conclusions: Tests based on perceptual preference allow selection of the preferred monovision correction and measurement of dominance strength. Translational Relevance: The binocular visual simulator allows efficient implementation of eye preference tests for monovision in clinical use.
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.