PURPOSE: To compare the performance of real depth and Randot stereotests in strabismic and nonstrabismic patients. DESIGN: Observational case series. METHODS: Stereoacuity was tested in 182 patients with a variety of strabismic conditions, using the Frisby-Davis 2 (FD2) distance stereotest, the near Frisby (nF) (both real depth tests), the Preschool Randot (nR), and Distance Randot (dR) tests (both based on Polaroid vectographs). RESULTS: Patients appreciated finer disparities with the nF test than the nR test at near and with the FD2 test than the dR test at distance. CONCLUSIONS: The type of stereotest influences measurable thresholds, and the results from different tests are not interchangeable. The choice of test should depend on the question being asked; nF and FD2 would be appropriate for determining presence or absence of stereopsis and best measurable stereopsis. The more rigorous Randot tests would be appropriate for determining subtle changes.
PURPOSE: To compare the performance of real depth and Randot stereotests in strabismic and nonstrabismic patients. DESIGN: Observational case series. METHODS: Stereoacuity was tested in 182 patients with a variety of strabismic conditions, using the Frisby-Davis 2 (FD2) distance stereotest, the near Frisby (nF) (both real depth tests), the Preschool Randot (nR), and Distance Randot (dR) tests (both based on Polaroid vectographs). RESULTS:Patients appreciated finer disparities with the nF test than the nR test at near and with the FD2 test than the dR test at distance. CONCLUSIONS: The type of stereotest influences measurable thresholds, and the results from different tests are not interchangeable. The choice of test should depend on the question being asked; nF and FD2 would be appropriate for determining presence or absence of stereopsis and best measurable stereopsis. The more rigorous Randot tests would be appropriate for determining subtle changes.
Authors: Wendy E Adams; David A Leske; Sarah R Hatt; Brian G Mohney; Eileen E Birch; David R Weakley; Jonathan M Holmes Journal: J AAPOS Date: 2007-12-21 Impact factor: 1.220
Authors: Simone L Li; Alexandre Reynaud; Robert F Hess; Yi-Zhong Wang; Reed M Jost; Sarah E Morale; Angie De La Cruz; Lori Dao; David Stager; Eileen E Birch Journal: J AAPOS Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 1.220
Authors: Sarah R Hatt; David A Leske; Brian G Mohney; Michael C Brodsky; Jonathan M Holmes Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2010-04-08 Impact factor: 5.258