ArticleAdvances in ophthalmology practice and research
Comparison of binocular visual function among patients with different types of anisometropia.
Article in Advances in ophthalmology practice and research. 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.
- Age-continuous centile curves reveal upper-tail divergence of anisometropia in 389 056 schoolchildren: implications for risk stratification in myopia control.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of a Novel Autostereoscopic Three-Dimensional System for Binocular Visual Function: A Comparative Validation Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- The Changing Natural History of Anisometropia: A Scoping Review.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- Refractive and visual changes in the fellow eye after unilateral refractive surgery in patients with anisometropia.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the perceived eye position, Titmus and stereopsis function across various types of anisometropia to identify differences in binocular visual function. Methods: This study included 204 anisometropic patients (observation group, interocular spherical equivalent difference ≥1.5D or cylindrical ≥1.0D) and 57 non-anisometropic controls (interocular differences <1.5D spherical or <1.0D cylindrical). Participants were initially stratified based on documented amblyopia history (94 with vs. 110 without), followed by further subgrouping of the observation group into hyperopic, myopic, and astigmatic anisometropia types for comparative analysis with controls. Standardized assessments comprised best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA, logMAR), cycloplegic refraction, Titmus near stereopsis (arcsec), binocular perceptual eye position (PEP) deviation, and three-order stereopsis thresholds measured via a computerized binocular vision assessment system. Statistical analysis adhered to CONSORT guidelines (SPSS v26.0, α = 0.05). Results: (1) No significant differences were observed between patients with documented amblyopia history and those without regarding equivalent spherical lens difference, horizontal/vertical PEP, three-order stereopsis, or Titmus test results. (2) The control group demonstrated superior vertical PEP, three-order stereopsis, and Titmus performance compared to all anisometropia subgroups (myopic, hypermetropic, and astigmatic; Conclusions: The study revealed no significant difference in visual function between anisometropic amblyopia patients who achieved normal BCVA (≤0.0 LogMAR) and non-amblyopic anisometropic controls. However, all forms of anisometropia demonstrated varying degrees of impairment to binocular fusion and stereopsis, with hypermetropic anisometropia showing the most pronounced deficits, particularly in near stereopsis. Notably, vertical PEP instability may contribute to the progression of hyperopic anisometropia.
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.