ArticlePloS one2025
Inter-examiner repeatability of measuring phorias using three different methods: Neurolens measurement device, the von Graefe method, and prism cover test.
Article in PloS one, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveHeterophoria is routinely measured during a comprehensive ocular examination. The aim of the current study is to compare the inter-examiner repeatability of the Neurolens measurement device (nMD), a commercially available instrument that objectively assesses phoria, to the inter-examiner repeatability of prism alternating cover test and the von Graefe method.
methods91young adults aged between 18-60 years were enrolled. Two experienced optometrists assessed phoria on each subject using three methods: the von Graefe method (VG), prism alternating cover test (PCT) and nMD. VG and PCT were performed at distance (6m) and near (40 cm). The nMD measurements were obtained using virtual distance (6m) and near (50 cm) targets. All the tests were performed in a single session by both the examiners in a randomized order.
resultsAll study participants were students, staff, and faculty of the Illinois College of Optometry. Of the 91 participants recruited, 65 were female. All participants completed the study with no missing data. The repeatability analysis showed nMD (distance: 0.69 ± 0.77PD; near: 1.00 ± 0.98PD) to have the smallest mean absolute difference at both distance and near compared to VG (distance: 3.28 ± 3.18PD; near: 4.48 ± 3.99PD) and PCT (distance: 1.50 ± 2.36PD; near: 4.05 ± 3.69PD). Bland Altmann analysis showed that the phoria measurements from nMD exhibited significantly less variability when compared with VG and PCT.
conclusionsThe Neurolens measurement device (nMD) has the highest inter-examiner repeatability when compared to traditional VG and PCT methods. Given that the measurements are objective and repeatable compared to the two traditional methods, this device has the potential to be a useful addition to current methods of clinical practice.
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.