ArticleJournal of eye movement research2026
Conventional Versus Virtual Reality-Based Hess-Lancaster Assessment: Agreement and Repeatability in Ocular Motility Evaluation.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe conventional Hess-Lancaster test is widely used to assess ocular misalignment across diagnostic gaze positions, but it relies on subjective responses and manual recording. Virtual reality may provide a more standardized framework for ocular motility assessment.
objectivesTo evaluate the agreement and within-method repeatability of point-by-point deviation measurements obtained with the conventional Hess-Lancaster test and a VR-based Hess-Lancaster assessment implemented in Dicopt Pro.
methodsThis cross-sectional observational study included 52 adults with suspected or diagnosed ocular motility disorders. Participants underwent both assessments using the same predefined gaze positions. Agreement was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis, concordance correlation coefficients, mean absolute differences, and mixed-effects modeling. Repeatability was evaluated in a subset with repeated measurements using session-to-session differences and intraclass correlation coefficients.
resultsThe VR-based assessment showed moderate agreement with the conventional test, with a mean concordance correlation coefficient of 0.57 for both eyes. Mean bias was 1.22 prism diopters for the right eye and 0.10 prism diopters for the left eye. Repeatability estimates were moderate-to-good, with ICC values ranging from 0.62 to 0.83, although repeated measurements were available only in a subset of participants.
conclusionsThe VR-based Hess-Lancaster assessment showed small mean differences and moderate agreement with the conventional test, although both methods should be interpreted within the context of the complete clinical examination.
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.