ArticleOphthalmology science2026
Development and Clinical Validation of a Digital Eye-Tracking-Based Cover Test for Ocular Misalignment.
Article in Ophthalmology science, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To develop and clinically validate the DIVE Cover Test (DCT), a portable eye-tracking-based digital implementation of the cover test, and to assess its diagnostic accuracy, agreement with the clinical reference standard (classic cover test [CCT]), and repeatability across cover-uncover test (CUT) and alternate cover test (ACT) phases and across horizontal and vertical axes. Design: A prospective clinical validation study. Participants: Sixty-eight participants aged 3 to 74 years, including healthy controls and patients referred for strabismus evaluation. Methods: Participants underwent 2 repetitions of the DCT and 2 independent CCT examinations performed by experienced clinicians at near distance (65 cm). The order of the 4 assessment blocks was randomized. Diagnostic performance (sensitivity/specificity) for detecting ocular misalignment was calculated using CCT classification as reference. Agreement and repeatability were evaluated using Bland-Altman mean differences and 95% limits of agreement (LoA), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs[2,k]), and Pearson correlations, separately for CUT versus ACT and horizontal versus vertical components. Main Outcome Measures: Sensitivity and specificity for detection of ocular misalignment; intermethod agreement between DCT and CCT; test-retest repeatability of the DCT; and interobserver agreement of the CCT. Results: For detecting any deviations, the DCT achieved 85% sensitivity and 98% specificity in CUT, and 92% sensitivity and 87% specificity in ACT. Agreement between DCT and CCT was strongest for horizontal deviations, particularly during ACT (mean difference -1.3 prism diopters [PD]; LoA -8.0 and 5.4 PD). Intermethod ICCs were high for horizontal deviations (CUT 0.93; ACT 0.96) and moderate-to-high for vertical deviations (both phases 0.81). The DCT test-retest repeatability was excellent (ICC ≥0.93 across axes and phases), with narrow LoA (±3.8 to ±4.6 PD). Classic cover test interobserver agreement was also high (ICC ≥0.95 across phases and axes). Conclusions: The DCT demonstrates high diagnostic accuracy, strong agreement with the clinical reference standard, and excellent repeatability. Phase-specific (CUT vs. ACT) and axis-specific (horizontal vs. vertical) analyses support the DCT as a practical, portable, and objective tool for quantifying ocular misalignment in clinical settings. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
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.