Pilar Cacho-Martínez1, Ángel García-Muñoz2, María Teresa Ruiz-Cantero3. 1. Departamento de Óptica, Farmacología y Anatomía, Universidad de Alicante, Alicante, Spain. Electronic address: cacho@ua.es. 2. Departamento de Óptica, Farmacología y Anatomía, Universidad de Alicante, Alicante, Spain. 3. Área de Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública, Universidad de Alicante, CIBERESP, Alicante, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To analyze the diagnostic criteria used in the scientific literature published in the past 25 years for accommodative and nonstrabismic binocular dysfunctions and to explore if the epidemiological analysis of diagnostic validity has been used to propose which clinical criteria should be used for diagnostic purposes. METHODS: We carried out a systematic review of papers on accommodative and non-strabic binocular disorders published from 1986 to 2012 analysing the MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and FRANCIS databases. We admitted original articles about diagnosis of these anomalies in any population. We identified 839 articles and 12 studies were included. The quality of included articles was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. RESULTS: The review shows a wide range of clinical signs and cut-off points between authors. Only 3 studies (regarding accommodative anomalies) assessed diagnostic accuracy of clinical signs. Their results suggest using the accommodative amplitude and monocular accommodative facility for diagnosing accommodative insufficiency and a high positive relative accommodation for accommodative excess. The remaining 9 articles did not analyze diagnostic accuracy, assessing a diagnosis with the criteria the authors considered. We also found differences between studies in the way of considering patients' symptomatology. 3 studies of 12 analyzed, performed a validation of a symptom survey used for convergence insufficiency. CONCLUSIONS: Scientific literature reveals differences between authors according to diagnostic criteria for accommodative and nonstrabismic binocular dysfunctions. Diagnostic accuracy studies show that there is only certain evidence for accommodative conditions. For binocular anomalies there is only evidence about a validated questionnaire for convergence insufficiency with no data of diagnostic accuracy.
PURPOSE: To analyze the diagnostic criteria used in the scientific literature published in the past 25 years for accommodative and nonstrabismic binocular dysfunctions and to explore if the epidemiological analysis of diagnostic validity has been used to propose which clinical criteria should be used for diagnostic purposes. METHODS: We carried out a systematic review of papers on accommodative and non-strabic binocular disorders published from 1986 to 2012 analysing the MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and FRANCIS databases. We admitted original articles about diagnosis of these anomalies in any population. We identified 839 articles and 12 studies were included. The quality of included articles was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. RESULTS: The review shows a wide range of clinical signs and cut-off points between authors. Only 3 studies (regarding accommodative anomalies) assessed diagnostic accuracy of clinical signs. Their results suggest using the accommodative amplitude and monocular accommodative facility for diagnosing accommodative insufficiency and a high positive relative accommodation for accommodative excess. The remaining 9 articles did not analyze diagnostic accuracy, assessing a diagnosis with the criteria the authors considered. We also found differences between studies in the way of considering patients' symptomatology. 3 studies of 12 analyzed, performed a validation of a symptom survey used for convergence insufficiency. CONCLUSIONS: Scientific literature reveals differences between authors according to diagnostic criteria for accommodative and nonstrabismic binocular dysfunctions. Diagnostic accuracy studies show that there is only certain evidence for accommodative conditions. For binocular anomalies there is only evidence about a validated questionnaire for convergence insufficiency with no data of diagnostic accuracy.
Keywords:
Accommodation, ocular; Acomodación, ocular; Desórdenes de la visión; Diagnosis; Diagnóstico; Review literature as topic; Revisión de la literatura; Vision disorders; Vision, binocular; Visión, binocular
Authors: Eric J Borsting; Michael W Rouse; G Lynn Mitchell; Mitchell Scheiman; Susan A Cotter; Jeffrey Cooper; Marjean Taylor Kulp; Richard London Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 1.973
Authors: Michael W Rouse; Eric J Borsting; G Lynn Mitchell; Mitchell Scheiman; Susan A Cotter; Jeffrey Cooper; Marjean T Kulp; Richard London; Janice Wensveen Journal: Ophthalmic Physiol Opt Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: María Carmen Sánchez-González; Verónica Pérez-Cabezas; Estanislao Gutiérrez-Sánchez; Carmen Ruiz-Molinero; Manuel Rebollo-Salas; José Jesús Jiménez-Rejano Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-01-15 Impact factor: 3.240