{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Diagnostic Protocol for Accommodative and Vergence Anomalies - A Review.
{Author}: Saikia M;Pant K;Dutta J;
{Journal}: J Binocul Vis Ocul Motil
{Volume}: 74
{Issue}: 2
{Year}: 2024 Apr-Jun 20
暂无{DOI}: 10.1080/2576117X.2024.2347663
{Abstract}: <B>UNASSIGNED: </B>To review the diagnostic protocols of non-strabismic binocular vision anomalies.<BR><B>UNASSIGNED: </B>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.<BR><B>UNASSIGNED: </B>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.<BR><B>UNASSIGNED: </B>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.