ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
Comparison of Worth Four Dots (W4D) and Bagolini Striated Lenses in adult suppression detection.
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.
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
backgroundSuppression is an adaptive response in which visual information from one eye is inhibited to prevent visual conflict. This phenomenon is commonly observed in individuals with strabismus, anisometropia, or amblyopia. Clinically detecting suppression is essential for assessing binocular vision and conducting visual training. The Worth Four Dots (W4D) and Bagolini Striated Lenses (BAG) are widely used tools. However, empirical comparisons of their screening performance in large-scale clinical settings remain limited.
methodsThis single-center, prospective, cross-sectional study recruited participants aged ≥ 18 at the Yuan Dong Optometry Clinic in Chiayi, Taiwan. All participants underwent distance suppression measurements using the W4D and BAG following subjective refraction. The W4D was consistently conducted prior to the BAG. The agreement between the two tests was analyzed using cross-tabulation, Cohen’s kappa coefficient, and McNemar’s test.
resultsA total of 2280 participants were included in this study. The W4D identified suppression in 35 participants, while the BAG identified 26 participants. Among these, 22 participants were positive on both tests; 13 were positive only on the W4D, and 4 were positive only on the BAG. Cohen’s kappa coefficient was 0.72, indicating a good level of agreement between the two tests. However, McNemar’s test revealed a significant difference between the two tests (p = 0.049), with the W4D detecting more positive participants.
conclusionThis study demonstrated a significant difference in suppression detection between the W4D and BAG. In the absence of a gold standard, the W4D is recommended as a first-line screening tool due to its higher detection rate. Further confirmatory testing should be conducted when suppression is indicated.
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.