ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2024
Usefulness Assessment of Automated Strabismus Angle Measurements Using Innovative Strabiscan Device.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Design and clinical evaluation of a virtual reality-based system for automated ocular deviation measurement.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2026Article
- Conventional Versus Virtual Reality-Based Hess-Lancaster Assessment: Agreement and Repeatability in Ocular Motility Evaluation.Journal of eye movement research · 2026Article
- Quantitative analysis of ocular deviation under eye occlusion: a descriptive study using the ORTe EYENAC eye-tracking system.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
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
backgroundThe variability of the obtained results of manual tests assessing the angle of strabismus depends on the experience, skills, and training of the examiner. The authors hope that this new measuring device will provide a more sensitive and repeatable method for detecting small strabismus angles compared to the gold standard-PCT. The purpose of this article is to present an innovative strabismus angle demonstration device, called Strabiscan, to provide automated measurements of eye deviation and to compare the obtained results of these measurements to the traditional manual method.
methodsFor patients with manifest strabismic disease (
resultsIn the control group using the Strabiscan demonstration device, small-angle latent strabismus ≤ 3DP was diagnosed in 83% of patients, while >3DP was found in 13%. In contrast, using the prismatic cover-uncover test, latent strabismus ≤ 3DP was diagnosed in only 13% of patients, and latent strabismus with an angle > 3DP was found in 13% of patients. No statistically significant differences were noted in the measurements of strabismus angles made by the different methods.
conclusionsThe Strabiscan demonstration device allows quick and accurate assessment of the strabismus angle. Compared to the prismatic cover-uncover test, it has a higher sensitivity for detecting low-angle latent strabismus. Measurements with the Strabiscan do not require the presence of additional assistants for the test.
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.