ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2025
Additional accommodative controls in near heterophoria targets do not improve accommodative responses in 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Additional accommodative controls in near heterophoria targets do not improve accommodative responses in young adults.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study evaluated newly designed tests to measure near heterophoria, comparing them to the Maddox Wing and Howell card, and assessed whether accommodative responses differed between the different heterophoria test targets.
methodsNear horizontal heterophoria of 20 visually normal young adults was measured using the Maddox Wing, Howell Card and two versions of a newly designed Huddersfield Heterophoria Test (HHT) card. The HHT cards are based on the Prentice method, either with or without an additional spatially defined grating superimposed on the scale. The addition of a spatially defined grating has been suggested to control accommodation better. A single examiner was used to take measurements on two separate occasions, presenting each test in a random order. Monocular accommodative responses to each heterophoria target were also obtained in a separate session by another examiner.
resultsHeterophoria measurements between the four tests were not significantly different, neither clinically nor statistically. Differences in test-retest measurements between test and retest conditions were small and not significantly different. Mean accommodative responses were also not significantly different between the test targets.
conclusionsDifferences in target configurations in the Maddox Wing, Howell card or new HHT cards did not influence accommodative responses in a sample of young adults. The newly designed HHT cards (or other variations of the Prentice method) may be used to measure near horizontal heterophoria in a young adult population either with or without additional horizontal lines superimposed on the scale.
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.