ArticleSaudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological Society
Prevalence of refractive errors and non-strabismic binocular vision anomalies in symptomatic and asymptomatic university students in Saudi Arabia.
Article in Saudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological Society. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study was conducted to estimate the prevalence of refractive errors and nonstrabismic binocular vision anomalies in young adult university students with and without symptoms in Saudi Arabia.
methodsThis study was conducted at the Department of Optometry at King Saud University, including 304 participants aged 16-35 years. The participants were categorized into symptomatic and asymptomatic groups based on the total score of the Convergence Insufficiency (CI) Symptom Survey. Full and comprehensive optometric assessments-including subjective refraction, accommodation, and vergence-were performed, and a diagnosis was established by comparing various parameters specific to each patient.
resultsAmong the 304 patients, 165 were female and 134 were male. The prevalence of all types of refractive errors was 46%, with myopic errors being the most common type. The prevalences of all types of accommodation and vergence anomalies were 33.50% and 50%, respectively. The most commonly observed accommodative anomaly was accommodative infacility, followed by accommodative insufficiency. The most commonly observed vergence anomaly was CI, followed by vergence infacility. Most participants reported symptoms; however, the differences in prevalence rates between symptomatic and asymptomatic participants were not statistically significant.
conclusionAlthough refractive errors were fully corrected and visual acuity was within normal limits, full and comprehensive optometric assessments were crucial to detect different types of visual system anomalies. Early identification and management offer the best chance for academic success among symptomatic university individuals.
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.