ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2025
Classification of accommodative insufficiency by monocular subjective push-up test is poorly predictive of monocular objective amplitudes in children and young adults.
Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Correlation Between Accommodative Facility and Light-Evoked Pupil Responses in Individuals with History of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury.Journal of eye movement research · 2026Article
- Testing Accommodation: The Case for Nott Dynamic Retinoscopy in Orthoptic Assessments.The British and Irish orthoptic journal · 2026Article
- Classification of accommodative insufficiency by monocular subjective push-up test is poorly predictive of monocular objective amplitudes in children and young adults.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025Article
- A novel approach using a polarized nonius test to evaluate the near point of convergence.Journal of optometryArticle
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
introductionTo determine whether classification of accommodative insufficiency (AI) based on the subjective push-up test is indicative of reduced amplitude measured objectively.
methodsMonocular subjective accommodative amplitude was measured in participants 7-24 years of age with the push-up test; a 0.9 mm letter was moved towards the eye until first sustained blur occurred. Monocular objective amplitude was measured with the same target and an autorefractor for demands from 2.5 to 30 D. The maximum response was termed the amplitude. Near point of convergence (NPC) was measured in a subset of participants. Participants were classified into groups using subjective amplitude: normal amplitude or AI (amplitude < ((15 - 0.25 × age) - 2)). Objective amplitude was plotted by age for each group and one-way ANCOVA used to evaluate differences while controlling for age. For NPC measures, a t-test compared the magnitude of the break between those with and without AI.
resultsFifty-five of 185 participants were classified as having AI. Objective amplitude decreased with age (0.20 D/year) and there was no significant difference in the age-adjusted mean amplitudes for the two groups (AI: 7.62 D, CI = 7.19, 8.04; Normal: 7.86 D, CI = 7.58, 8.15; p = 0.11). For the subset with NPC measures, participants classified as having AI had significantly more receded break values than those without AI (7.7 ± 5 vs. 3.7 ± 3 cm, p < 0.001).
conclusionsFactors other than accommodative ability may be contributing to lower subjective amplitude findings in individuals meeting the criterion for AI.
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.