ArticlePeerJ2026
Near vision symptoms and their association with refractive error and binocular vision function among medical sciences students.
Article in PeerJ, 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
Background: Near-vision-related symptoms are common among students who are often engaged in prolonged near work, such as reading and using digital devices. Objective: To assess the occurrence of ocular symptoms and their associated visual functions among medical sciences students at Qassim University, Saudi Arabia. Methods: This cross-sectional study included 58 participants conducted between May and July 2025. Each participant completed a validated Convergence Insufficiency Symptom Survey (CISS) and underwent a comprehensive assessment of refraction, binocular vision and accommodative function. Results: The findings revealed that 29.3% of participants were classified as symptomatic based on CISS. The most commonly reported symptom was difficulty retaining information after reading (48%), whereas the least reported symptom was the perception of words moving or jumping on the page (7%). Furthermore, uncorrected refractive error significantly influenced symptom severity; ametropic participants reported higher CISS scores (mean ± SD: 18.6 ± 7.5) than emmetropic participants (9.2 ± 5.3, Conclusion: The findings highlight that near-vision-related symptoms are prevalent among university students and are significantly influenced by uncorrected refractive errors. Although no significant correlations were identified between symptom severity and binocular vision or accommodative function, these findings underscore the critical role of refractive correction and routine vision screening in academic populations.
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.