ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
Is the convergence insufficiency symptom survey applicable to elderly individuals?
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prevalence of non-strabismic binocular vision anomalies and age-related changes in binocular vision among middle-aged and older adults: a systematic review.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluation of the Impact of a Novel Visual Training Video Game on Oculomotor Function and Visual Symptoms in Subjects with Parkinson's Disease and Convergence Insufficiency: A Pilot Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Behind the Lens: A Cross-Sectional Study of Convergence Insufficiency in Photographers.Cureus · 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 psychometric properties of the Convergence Insufficiency Symptom Survey (CISS) have been previously determined across the younger adult population. This study investigated the psychometric properties of the CISS in presbyopic adults via classical and Rasch analysis.
methodsA total of 100 presbyopic individuals (40-60 years) were selected with far and near acuity of 20/20 with their habitual spectacles; 50 had convergence insufficiency and 50 had normal binocular vision. Refraction, cover test, near point of convergence, and positive fusional ranges were examined. The Persian translated CISS was administered twice, once in the first session and 7 to 14 days later. Classical and Rasch analyses were conducted.
resultsThe mean ages and gender ratios in the CI group and normal group were 49.70 ± 5.96 and 49.82 ± 5.64 years with a 50% female distribution among individuals. The mean CISS scores for presbyopes with CI and normal groups were 19.24 ± 5.33 and 13.26 ± 3.53 respectively (p < 0.001). Effective discrimination was achieved with a score greater than 15, yielding a sensitivity of 72%, a specificity of 69%, and an Area Under the Curve (AUC) of 0.813. For internal consistency, Cronbach's α coefficient was 0.82. For test-retest reliability in CISS scores, ICC was 0.91 (confidence interval 0.88-0.93) with the 95% limits of agreement in CI group being - 3.91 to 2.59. The Rasch analysis demonstrated a satisfactory model fit, as all items had infit and outfit mean square values ranging between 0.6 and 1.4. The measurement precision was good, with a person separation value of 2.30. Additionally, the first contrast eigenvalue of 2.34 and a raw variance of less than 50% indicated multidimensionality. The CI group reported headaches (item 3) more frequently than the normal binocular vision group did. However, eye discomfort scores (item 10) were similar for both groups.
conclusionsThe CISS is a valid and reliable tool for assessing the symptoms in presbyopic adults. However, due to this survey's multidimensionality, we recommend additional objective examinations in presbyopic adults with CI.
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.