ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2026
Vestibular Dysfunction and Binocular Vision Impairment: A New Clinical Perspective.
Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2026. 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
backgroundIndividuals with vestibular dysfunction frequently experience dizziness, nausea and imbalance in visually complex or dynamic environments, such as during computer use, shopping, walking in crowds or even during simple eye movements.
objectiveTo determine whether binocular visual function differs between participants with vestibular dysfunction and healthy controls, and to identify clinical factors associated with binocular visual abnormalities.
methodsForty participants with vestibular dysfunction and forty healthy controls were enroled. Binocular visual function was assessed using tests of suppression, perceptual eye position, vergence range and stereopsis. Between-group differences were analysed. Logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with binocular visual function abnormalities. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were conducted to evaluate the discriminative ability of binocular visual parameters.
resultsCompared with controls, participants with vestibular dysfunction demonstrated significantly diminished convergence, divergence and stereopsis, while no significant differences were observed in suppression or perceptual eye position. Vestibular dysfunction was independently associated with abnormal convergence (odds ratio (OR) = 47.67, 95% confidence interval (CI): 10.04-226.44), divergence (OR = 5.99, 95% CI: 1.47-24.31) and stereopsis (OR = 42.32, 95% CI: 8.71-205.67). ROC analysis between the two groups showed good discriminative performance for convergence (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.86), stereopsis (AUC = 0.86) and moderate performance for divergence (AUC = 0.72). Among participants, a lower visual score in the sensory organisation test (SOT) was independently associated with abnormal convergence (OR = 16.43, 95% CI: 1.35-199.91), while abnormal positional testing was associated with impaired divergence (OR = 8.98, 95% CI: 1.13-71.27).
conclusionsParticipants with vestibular dysfunction exhibited abnormalities in binocular visual function, particularly vergence capacity and stereopsis. Assessment of binocular visual function may provide complementary clinical information for identifying vestibular dysfunction and guiding individualised clinical management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41954866What 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.