Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41001207›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2025

Automated strabismus evaluation: a critical review and meta-analysis.

Emma M Hartness, Fangfang Jiang, Gideon K D Zamba, Caroline Allen, Tara L Bragg, Julie Nellis, Alina V Dumitrescu, Randy H Kardon

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Binocular Vision Anomalies: An Update on Prevalence, Impact, Technological and Treatment Developments and Current Challenges.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Emma M HartnessCarver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, United States.
Fangfang JiangDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, United States.
Gideon K D ZambaCarver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, United States.
Caroline AllenDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, United States.
Tara L BraggIowa City VA Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Visual Loss, VA Health Care System, Iowa City, IA, United States.
Julie NellisIowa City VA Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Visual Loss, VA Health Care System, Iowa City, IA, United States.
Alina V DumitrescuIowa City VA Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Visual Loss, VA Health Care System, Iowa City, IA, United States.
Randy H KardonIowa City VA Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Visual Loss, VA Health Care System, Iowa City, IA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Adult strabismus has a wide range of etiologies and necessitates clinical evaluation for appropriate treatment. Advancements in eye tracking technology show promise for the development of clinically accurate, automated evaluation and diagnosis of peripheral and central causes of ocular misalignment. However, multiple barriers prevent the incorporation of automated devices into clinical use. This study aimed to perform a quantitative meta-analysis and qualitative assessment of published reports of devices capable of automated strabismus evaluation. Methods: A systematic search of the literature was conducted to identify reports of automated strabismus evaluation published between the years 1949-2025. Sixty-nine studies were identified through the literature search, and 17 of these studies qualified for statistical meta-analysis of automated device quality compared to gold standard clinical evaluation. We also analyzed factors affecting clinical use, including device portability, cost, and applicability toward patients with extreme angles of strabismus or anatomic variances, among others. Results: Meta-analysis demonstrated a pooled estimation of correlation of 0.87 [95% CI: (0.81, 0.91)] between results obtained by devices capable of automated strabismus evaluation in the literature and gold standard clinical evaluation. We identified advantages and limitations of previous models and offered guidelines to facilitate the advancement of device capabilities toward the level of gold standard expert clinical evaluation, and to facilitate the clinical implementation of these devices. Discussion: While barriers exist between experimental testing and clinical incorporation, automated strabismus technology shows promise for rapid, precise, and accurate evaluation of strabismus and has the potential to expand access to ophthalmic care in cases of low-resource or remote areas that lack local expert clinical personnel.

Indexed as

automated strabismus evaluationeye movement disordersmeta-analysisocular misalignmentstrabismustechnological development

Identifiers

PMID41001207
PMCPMC12457155

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.