ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2025
Long-term test and retest reliability of clinical vergence testing.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo establish long-term reliability measures for vergence testing in a control population of adolescents.
methodsHealthy participants between 12 and 17.5 years with normal binocular vision were recruited from 10 clinical sites. Cover test, near point of convergence (NPC), positive and negative fusional vergences, vergence facility (12∆ base-out/3∆ base-in) and vergence jumps (using the Oculomotor Assessment Tool) were performed at the initial visit and repeated at 90 days. The mean and standard deviation were calculated for the overall group for NPC, vergence facility and vergence jumps and by prism dioptre step value for PFV and NFV (1Δ or 2Δ if below 20∆ or 5Δ above 20∆). Agreement was assessed using Bland-Altman plots and 95% limits of agreement (LOA).
resultsNinety-three participants (mean age 14.3 ± 1.7 years, 52% female) were enrolled and 91 (98%) completed the initial and 90-day outcome evaluation. The mean differences were significantly greater than zero for vergence facility (p < 0.05) and the first and second 30 s of vergence jumps (p < 0.01). The 95% LOA were narrow for NPC (±2.5) and negative fusional vergence (±5.9), suggesting good repeatability. LOA were larger for positive fusional vergence (±17.8), vergence facility (±9.8) and vergence jumps (±16.2). Analysis of the positive fusional vergence data indicates that the different step sizes (1∆ or 2∆ vs. 5∆) in the horizontal prism bar contribute to considerably larger variability in these measures.
conclusionsIn participants with normal binocular vision and no concussion history, good reliability yielded comparable results 90 days apart for all vergence measures. The results provide values that can be used to interpret the effect of intervention for vergence disorders in clinical practice and research studies. An important outcome of this study is the understanding that 5∆ steps on the typical horizontal prism bar contribute to high variability in positive fusional vergence measures when findings are ≥20∆.
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.