Trial reportBMC ophthalmology2024
A brief effective screening protocol for identifying cataract patients with binocular vision anomalies.
Trial report in BMC ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03592615 (Prevalence of Binocular Vision Anomalies Before and After Cataract and Refractive Surgery), which is not on this 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.
Prevalence of Binocular Vision Anomalies Before and After Cataract and Refractive Surgery
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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the effectiveness of a brief binocular vision screening protocol to a comprehensive examination for detecting binocular vision anomalies before and after cataract surgery.
methodsA comprehensive binocular vision test battery as a gold standard were administered on recruited patients before the first surgery and at the third visit after surgery on the second eye. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted to illustrate the diagnostic ability of each test. In addition, a univariate logistic regression analysis was performed to further determine the contribution of each preoperative test to the prediction of pre- and post-surgical binocular vision anomalies.
resultsSignificant differences were shown for the difference in phoria from distance to near measured by the cover test (Area Under Curve [AUC] = 0.96, P < 0.01), step vergence testing of positive fusional vergence at distance (AUC = 0.71, P < 0.01) and near (AUC = 0.77, P < 0.01). The other tests did not show statistically significant differences. The ROC curve generated by combining the difference in distance and near phoria with positive fusional vergence at both distance and near demonstrated a more robust measure of diagnostic accuracy. (AUC = 0.98, P < 0.01).
conclusionDistance and near phoria difference measured by cover test has similar effectiveness as a comprehensive binocular vision testing protocol for the diagnosis of binocular vision anomalies. Distance and near positive fusional vergence measured by step vergence testing also have significant predictive value. A combination of the two tests is an outstanding screening protocol for binocular vision anomalies before cataract surgery.
trial registrationThe study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03592615, Date of registration: July 19, 2018).
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.