ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2023
Assessment of precision and reliability of a novel computerized heterophoria test.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the precision and reliability of a novel computerized heterophoria test (CHT). Methods: One hundred and three subjects aged 20 to 48 (27.37 ± 5.15) were recruited from Wenzhou Medical University. All subjects with corrected spectacles were examined with CHT and a prism-neutralized objective cover test (POCT) in a randomized order. They were then re-examined with CHT within 1 week. Their heterophoria was measured at three different distances (3 m, 0.77 m and 0.4 m); the average was recorded after three consecutive measurements. Inter-examiner repeatability, intra-examiner repeatability of CHT and agreement between CHT and POCT were evaluated. Results: There was no significant difference among repeated measurements using CHT (all Conclusion: The CHT demonstrated excellent inter- and intra-examiner repeatability, as well as good correlation with POCT. The differences between CHT and POCT were within the permissible range of error, indicating that CHT could provide a precise and reliable measurement for clinical applications.
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.