PURPOSE: To develop and validate an improved measure of control in intermittent exotropia (XT). DESIGN: Prospective, noninterventional case series. METHODS: Twelve children with intermittent XT were evaluated during 4 sessions (2 hours apart) over a day, on 2 separate days (8 sessions per child). Control was standardized using a scoring system and quantified 3 times during each examination. Overall control for a day was calculated as the mean of all 12 measures. Single measures of control and the mean of 2 (double) and 3 (triple) measures over the examination were compared with the respective day mean, and first-day measures were compared to the second-day mean. RESULTS: At distance, 17% (49/287, 95% confidence interval [CI] 13% to 22%) of single measures differed from the day mean, whereas only 8% (16/191, 95 CI 5% to 13%) of double measures and 5% (5/95, 95% CI 2% to 12%) of triple measures differed. Comparing day 1 measures to overall mean for day 2, 17% (24/143, 95% CI 11% to 24%) of single measures and 17% (22/130, 95% CI 11% to 24%) of double measures differed by more than 1 level, whereas 11% (5/47, 95% CI 4% to 23%) of triple measures differed. CONCLUSIONS: The mean of 3 assessments of control during a clinic examination better represents overall control than a single measure.
PURPOSE: To develop and validate an improved measure of control in intermittent exotropia (XT). DESIGN: Prospective, noninterventional case series. METHODS: Twelve children with intermittent XT were evaluated during 4 sessions (2 hours apart) over a day, on 2 separate days (8 sessions per child). Control was standardized using a scoring system and quantified 3 times during each examination. Overall control for a day was calculated as the mean of all 12 measures. Single measures of control and the mean of 2 (double) and 3 (triple) measures over the examination were compared with the respective day mean, and first-day measures were compared to the second-day mean. RESULTS: At distance, 17% (49/287, 95% confidence interval [CI] 13% to 22%) of single measures differed from the day mean, whereas only 8% (16/191, 95 CI 5% to 13%) of double measures and 5% (5/95, 95% CI 2% to 12%) of triple measures differed. Comparing day 1 measures to overall mean for day 2, 17% (24/143, 95% CI 11% to 24%) of single measures and 17% (22/130, 95% CI 11% to 24%) of double measures differed by more than 1 level, whereas 11% (5/47, 95% CI 4% to 23%) of triple measures differed. CONCLUSIONS: The mean of 3 assessments of control during a clinic examination better represents overall control than a single measure.
Authors: R A Stathacopoulos; A L Rosenbaum; D Zanoni; D R Stager; L C McCall; A J Ziffer; M Everett Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 1993-04 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Rosanne Superstein; Trevano W Dean; Jonathan M Holmes; Danielle L Chandler; Susan A Cotter; David K Wallace; B Michele Melia; Raymond T Kraker; R Grey Weaver; Brian G Mohney; Sean P Donahue; Eileen E Birch Journal: J AAPOS Date: 2017-06-28 Impact factor: 1.220
Authors: Susan A Cotter; Brian G Mohney; Danielle L Chandler; Jonathan M Holmes; Michael X Repka; Michele Melia; David K Wallace; Roy W Beck; Eileen E Birch; Raymond T Kraker; Susanna M Tamkins; Aaron M Miller; Nicholas A Sala; Stephen R Glaser Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2014-09-16 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Sarah R Hatt; David A Leske; Laura Liebermann; Brian G Mohney; Michael C Brodsky; Tomohiko Yamada; Jonathan M Holmes Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2013-12-04 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Jonathan M Holmes; David A Leske; Amra Hercinovic; Sarah R Hatt; Danielle L Chandler; Zhuokai Li; B Michele Melia; Angela M Chen; Sergul Ayse Erzurum; Eric R Crouch; Erin C Jenewein; Raymond T Kraker; Susan A Cotter Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2022-04-12 Impact factor: 2.106
Authors: Angela M Chen; Jonathan M Holmes; Danielle L Chandler; Reena A Patel; Michael E Gray; S Ayse Erzurum; David K Wallace; Raymond T Kraker; Allison A Jensen Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2016-08-06 Impact factor: 12.079