Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: To review the diagnostic protocols of non-strabismic binocular vision anomalies.
UNASSIGNED: We carried out a literature search on published articles of non-strabismic accommodative and vergence anomalies in different international optometry and ophthalmology journals found in the Pubmed, ResearchGate, Google Scholar, and MEDLINE databases.
UNASSIGNED: The diagnostic criteria and normative data from the nine articles selected show discrepancies and variability in methodologies and techniques in the overall assessment of Non-Strabismic Binocular Vision Anomalies (NSBVA). Near point of convergence measurement is the most common assessment, whereas the vergence facility is the least commonly used assessment in terms of evaluating convergence insufficiency. Near point of convergence > 10 cm alone is the most sensitive sign to detect convergence insufficiency in a community set-up but high positive relative accommodation (>3.50D) is the most sensitive sign to diagnose accommodative excess. On the other hand, monocular accommodative facility < 7 CPM has the highest sensitivity to confirm the diagnosis of accommodative infacility. This review also indicates that the more clinical signs that are included in a set of diagnostic criteria, the lower the prevalence rate for that diagnosis.
UNASSIGNED: There is no standardized and diagnostically validated protocol for the assessment of NSBVAs. Variable cutoff values obtained using different methods and the selection of diagnostic criteria by various researchers have led to discrepancies that highlight the need for diagnostic validity of available protocols (combination of tests) for each anomaly. Clinical signs such as positive relative accommodation (PRA) for accommodative excess, near point of convergence (NPC) for convergence insufficiency and monocular accommodative facility (MAF) for accommodative infacility were found to be useful diagnostic signs of these anomalies. Studies should be carried out for accommodative and vergence dysfunctions using proper designs and methods to validate diagnostic criteria for all age groups. Standardization of assessment protocol and cutoff criteria will also aid in calculating prevalence for non-strabismic binocular vision anomalies.
UNASSIGNED: We carried out a literature search on published articles of non-strabismic accommodative and vergence anomalies in different international optometry and ophthalmology journals found in the Pubmed, ResearchGate, Google Scholar, and MEDLINE databases.
UNASSIGNED: The diagnostic criteria and normative data from the nine articles selected show discrepancies and variability in methodologies and techniques in the overall assessment of Non-Strabismic Binocular Vision Anomalies (NSBVA). Near point of convergence measurement is the most common assessment, whereas the vergence facility is the least commonly used assessment in terms of evaluating convergence insufficiency. Near point of convergence > 10 cm alone is the most sensitive sign to detect convergence insufficiency in a community set-up but high positive relative accommodation (>3.50D) is the most sensitive sign to diagnose accommodative excess. On the other hand, monocular accommodative facility < 7 CPM has the highest sensitivity to confirm the diagnosis of accommodative infacility. This review also indicates that the more clinical signs that are included in a set of diagnostic criteria, the lower the prevalence rate for that diagnosis.
UNASSIGNED: There is no standardized and diagnostically validated protocol for the assessment of NSBVAs. Variable cutoff values obtained using different methods and the selection of diagnostic criteria by various researchers have led to discrepancies that highlight the need for diagnostic validity of available protocols (combination of tests) for each anomaly. Clinical signs such as positive relative accommodation (PRA) for accommodative excess, near point of convergence (NPC) for convergence insufficiency and monocular accommodative facility (MAF) for accommodative infacility were found to be useful diagnostic signs of these anomalies. Studies should be carried out for accommodative and vergence dysfunctions using proper designs and methods to validate diagnostic criteria for all age groups. Standardization of assessment protocol and cutoff criteria will also aid in calculating prevalence for non-strabismic binocular vision anomalies.
摘要：
■审查非斜视双眼视觉异常的诊断方案。
■我们对Pubmed中发现的不同国际验光和眼科期刊中有关非斜视性调节和聚散异常的已发表文章进行了文献检索，ResearchGate,谷歌学者，和MEDLINE数据库。
■所选九篇文章的诊断标准和规范数据显示，在非斜视双目视觉异常（NSBVA）的总体评估中，方法和技术存在差异和差异。近收敛点测量是最常见的评估，而在评估收敛不足方面，收敛度设施是最不常用的评估。在社区设置中，仅收敛点>10cm是检测收敛不足的最敏感标志，但高的正相对调节（>3.50D）是诊断调节过度的最敏感标志。另一方面,单眼调节设施<7CPM对确认调节设施诊断的敏感性最高。这篇综述还表明，一组诊断标准中包含的临床体征越多，该诊断的患病率越低。
■对于NSBVA的评估，没有标准化和诊断验证的方案。使用不同方法获得的可变截止值以及各种研究人员对诊断标准的选择导致了差异，这些差异突出了每种异常的可用协议（测试组合）的诊断有效性的需求。临床症状，如调节过度的正相对调节（PRA），会聚不足的近收敛点（NPC）和调节设施的单眼调节设施（MAF）被发现是这些异常的有用诊断标志。应使用适当的设计和方法对调节和发散功能障碍进行研究，以验证所有年龄组的诊断标准。评估方案和截止标准的标准化也将有助于计算非斜视双眼视觉异常的患病率。
■我们对Pubmed中发现的不同国际验光和眼科期刊中有关非斜视性调节和聚散异常的已发表文章进行了文献检索，ResearchGate,谷歌学者，和MEDLINE数据库。
■所选九篇文章的诊断标准和规范数据显示，在非斜视双目视觉异常（NSBVA）的总体评估中，方法和技术存在差异和差异。近收敛点测量是最常见的评估，而在评估收敛不足方面，收敛度设施是最不常用的评估。在社区设置中，仅收敛点>10cm是检测收敛不足的最敏感标志，但高的正相对调节（>3.50D）是诊断调节过度的最敏感标志。另一方面,单眼调节设施<7CPM对确认调节设施诊断的敏感性最高。这篇综述还表明，一组诊断标准中包含的临床体征越多，该诊断的患病率越低。
■对于NSBVA的评估，没有标准化和诊断验证的方案。使用不同方法获得的可变截止值以及各种研究人员对诊断标准的选择导致了差异，这些差异突出了每种异常的可用协议（测试组合）的诊断有效性的需求。临床症状，如调节过度的正相对调节（PRA），会聚不足的近收敛点（NPC）和调节设施的单眼调节设施（MAF）被发现是这些异常的有用诊断标志。应使用适当的设计和方法对调节和发散功能障碍进行研究，以验证所有年龄组的诊断标准。评估方案和截止标准的标准化也将有助于计算非斜视双眼视觉异常的患病率。
