ReviewCureus2026
Assessment and Clinical Classification of Accommodative Dysfunctions in Non-presbyopic Patients: A Narrative Clinical Review.
Review in Cureus, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review aims to provide a summary of the present knowledge in the assessment and classification of accommodative dysfunctions in non-presbyopic patients, with special emphasis placed on the impact of the assessment techniques and protocols employed in the measurement of the dysfunctions. The most commonly employed clinical and objective techniques in the assessment of accommodative dysfunctions are discussed, in addition to the major limitations and diagnostic biases associated with the techniques. The major accommodative dysfunctions include insufficiency, infacility, spasm, fatigue, and paresis, while the most striking limitations in the assessment of these dysfunctions include inconsistencies in the assessment techniques and protocols employed, as well as the diagnostic criteria and norms. A pragmatic approach for the diagnosis of the dysfunctions is proposed with the aim of enhancing the specificity of the diagnostic techniques employed in the assessment of the dysfunctions. Standardization of the techniques and protocols employed in the assessment of the dysfunctions, in addition to the integration of objective dynamic techniques in the assessment of the dysfunctions, may help in the elimination of the diagnostic biases associated with the assessment techniques employed. This narrative review was developed using recent peer-reviewed articles retrieved from major scientific databases, including PubMed, ScienceDirect, Wiley Online Library, and Scopus, with emphasis on clinically relevant and recent publications.
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.