ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
Deviation control that deteriorates with fixation distance in basic-type intermittent exotropia.
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 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.
- Effects of Home-Based Antisuppression and Binocular Integration Training in Patients with Intermittent Exotropia: A Retrospective Study.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsThe clinical assessment of deviation control at near (30 cm or 1/3 m) and far (5-6 m) does not reflect if and how patients' control changes between these two predetermined test distances. We examine how patients' control varies at 6 fixation distances between the two clinical test distances of 30 cm and 5 m.
methodsThe medical records of 48 patients with basic intermittent exotropia (IXT) were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who had visited the Kindai University Hospital between October 2021 and March 2022 without a prior history of treatments except spectacle correction were included. Eye position was examined with refractive correction using the cover test, and 6 fixation distances at 30 cm, 1 m, 2 m, 3 m, 4 m, and 5 m were tested in increasing order. Control assessed at each fixation distance was classified using the Kushner's method (2019). This study rated the control of a poor or fair level as unfavorable and the control of an excellent or good level as favorable. The distance at which the patient's control deteriorated was analyzed.
resultsOf 48, 38 (79%) patients had a favorable baseline control, and 8 of them could maintain a favorable control at all distances. Of the 30 patients who could not maintain the favorable baseline control, 17 (57%) at 1 m, 2 (7%) at 2 m, 6 (20%) at 3 m, 2 (7%) at 4 m, and 2 (7%) at 5 m were observed with a control deterioration. The incidence of control deterioration at 1 m was significantly higher than the incidence at other distances (between 1 and 2, 4, 5 m, p < 0.01; between 1 and 3 m, p < 0.05).
conclusionsDeviation control in patients with basic IXT was affected by fixation distance and most likely worsened at 1 m. Assessing control at various fixation distances may provide a more comprehensive understanding of patients' actual control.
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.