Observational studyOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2026
Diagnostic Validity of Accommodative Tests for Screening Suspected Accommodative Excess in Adolescents.
Observational study 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAccommodative excess (AE) is characterised by an excessive accommodative response (lead) and impaired ability to relax accommodation, typically accompanied by asthenopic symptoms and reduced visual comfort during near tasks. Although AE is frequently observed in clinical practice, its definition and diagnostic criteria remain inconsistent, and the diagnostic performance of commonly used clinical tests is not well established. This study examined the diagnostic validity of tests evaluating the accommodative response and relaxation to detect suspected AE in a non-clinical adolescent population, using monocular accommodative facility (MAF) as the reference clinical sign.
methodsIn this prospective observational study, 159 participants aged 13-14 years underwent comprehensive vision examinations including anamnesis, refraction, binocular vision assessment and measurement of accommodative variables (negative relative accommodation (NRA), fused cross cylinder (FCC), binocular accommodative facility (BAF) and monocular estimate method retinoscopy (MEM)). After exclusions, 142 participants were analysed. MAF served as the reference clinical sign. For each test, diagnostic ability (area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve), sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratios were calculated.
resultsAreas under the ROC curve were: BAF = 0.97, FCC = 0.79, MEM = 0.62, NRA = 0.62. Sensitivity and specificity were high for BAF (0.88, 0.97), very good and good for FCC (0.90, 0.79), very low and very high for MEM (0.22, 0.96) and low and very high for NRA (0.32, 0.97). Positive and negative likelihood ratios were: BAF = 29.33/0.12, FCC = 4.28/0.12, MEM = 5.5/0.81, NRA = 5.33/0.72.
conclusionsBAF and FCC show the highest sensitivity for identifying suspected AE in school-aged populations. MEM retinoscopy and NRA exhibited low sensitivity relative to the reference clinical sign and may fail to detect AE when included as required signs in multimodal diagnostic protocols. Their results should therefore be interpreted cautiously and alongside more sensitive accommodative tests and clinical symptoms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42043758What 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.