ArticleJournal of eye movement research2026
Diagnostic Criteria for Convergence Excess: Diagnostic Validity of Clinical Signs Associated with Near Esophoria.
Article in Journal of eye movement research, 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
To propose which tests may be used for diagnosing convergence excess. A prospective study of a consecutive clinical sample was performed. Patients (18-35 years) attending optometric care underwent subjective refraction, cover test, and Symptom Questionnaire for Visual Dysfunctions (SQVD). Based on cover test and SQVD scores, two groups were recruited: 64 symptomatic subjects with near esophoria and 64 asymptomatic with normal binocular vision. Accommodative and binocular tests were assessed, identifying those with significant statistical differences between groups. Diagnostic validity was analysed using ROC curves, sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios. A serial testing strategy combining tests was also evaluated. ROC analysis showed best diagnostic accuracy for binocular accommodative facility (BAF) failing with -2.00 D (area under the curve, AUC = 0.865) and vergence facility (VF) failing with base-in prisms (AUC = 0.864). Using cutoffs from ROC analysis (BAF: ≤8.25 cpm and VF ≤ 12.75 cpm), their combination showed best validity (S = 0.625, Sp = 0.938, LR+ = 10, LR- = 0.4). The combined AUC was 0.932. The proposal for diagnosing convergence excess is to use, in addition to near esophoria with normal distance heterophoria, the combination of failing BAF with negative lenses and failing vergence facility with base-in prisms.
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.