PURPOSE: To compare stereoacuity thresholds before and after visual acuity testing in patients with intermittent strabismus and in controls. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS AND CONTROLS: Eighty-eight patients (41 with intermittent strabismus and 47 controls) with measurable stereoacuity on their initial stereoacuity test were enrolled prospectively. METHODS: Stereoacuity was measured before and immediately after visual acuity testing using the near Preschool Randot and Distance Randot stereotests. Stereoacuity was transformed to log units for analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in stereoacuity thresholds (log seconds of arc [arcsec]). RESULTS: There was no overall deterioration in distance stereoacuity or near stereoacuity thresholds in either the intermittent strabismus or control groups. The mean change for patients with intermittent strabismus was 0.02 log arcsec (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.02 to 0.06) for near stereoacuity and 0.04 log arcsec (95% CI, -0.01 to 0.09) for distance stereoacuity. Control patients demonstrated a mean change of 0.03 log arcsec (95% CI, -0.01 to 0.06) for near stereoacuity and 0.01 log arcsec (95% CI, -0.06 to 0.08) for distance stereoacuity. These mean changes correspond to less than approximately one eighth of an octave. For individual patients, deterioration in stereoacuity beyond previously reported test-retest variability (0.6 log arcsec or more) was not observed in patients with intermittent strabismus or controls using either test. CONCLUSIONS: Stereoacuity thresholds do not deteriorate after visual acuity testing, and therefore measurements of stereoacuity do not need to precede visual acuity measurement or other tests that involve short periods of dissociation. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.
PURPOSE: To compare stereoacuity thresholds before and after visual acuity testing in patients with intermittent strabismus and in controls. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS AND CONTROLS: Eighty-eight patients (41 with intermittent strabismus and 47 controls) with measurable stereoacuity on their initial stereoacuity test were enrolled prospectively. METHODS: Stereoacuity was measured before and immediately after visual acuity testing using the near Preschool Randot and Distance Randot stereotests. Stereoacuity was transformed to log units for analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in stereoacuity thresholds (log seconds of arc [arcsec]). RESULTS: There was no overall deterioration in distance stereoacuity or near stereoacuity thresholds in either the intermittent strabismus or control groups. The mean change for patients with intermittent strabismus was 0.02 log arcsec (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.02 to 0.06) for near stereoacuity and 0.04 log arcsec (95% CI, -0.01 to 0.09) for distance stereoacuity. Control patients demonstrated a mean change of 0.03 log arcsec (95% CI, -0.01 to 0.06) for near stereoacuity and 0.01 log arcsec (95% CI, -0.06 to 0.08) for distance stereoacuity. These mean changes correspond to less than approximately one eighth of an octave. For individual patients, deterioration in stereoacuity beyond previously reported test-retest variability (0.6 log arcsec or more) was not observed in patients with intermittent strabismus or controls using either test. CONCLUSIONS: Stereoacuity thresholds do not deteriorate after visual acuity testing, and therefore measurements of stereoacuity do not need to precede visual acuity measurement or other tests that involve short periods of dissociation. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.
Authors: Rohit Varma; Jennifer Deneen; Susan Cotter; Sylvia H Paz; Stanley P Azen; Kristina Tarczy-Hornoch; Peng Zhao Journal: Ophthalmic Epidemiol Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 1.648
Authors: Jingyun Wang; Sarah R Hatt; Anna R O'Connor; James R Drover; Russell Adams; Eileen E Birch; Jonathan M Holmes Journal: J AAPOS Date: 2010-03-03 Impact factor: 1.220
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: Roy W Beck; Pamela S Moke; Andrew H Turpin; Frederick L Ferris; John Paul SanGiovanni; Chris A Johnson; Eileen E Birch; Danielle L Chandler; Terry A Cox; R Clifford Blair; Raymond T Kraker Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 5.258
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: Jenny C A Read; Sheima Rafiq; Jess Hugill; Therese Casanova; Carla Black; Adam O'Neill; Vicente Puyat; Helen Haggerty; Kathryn Smart; Christine Powell; Kate Taylor; Michael P Clarke; Kathleen Vancleef Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-11-07 Impact factor: 3.240