Melissa L. Rice

Validity of the convergence insufficiency symptom survey: a confirmatory study.

Purpose. The objectives of the present study were to evaluate whether investigator bias influenced the Convergence Insufficiency Symptom Survey (CISS) scores of children with normal binocular vision (NBV) in our original validation study, reevaluate the usefulness of the cutoff score of 16, and reexamine the validity of the CISS. Methods. Six clinical sites participating in the Convergence Insufficiency Treatment Trial (CITT) enrolled 46 children 9 to <18 years with NBV. Examiners masked to the child’s binocular vision status administered the CISS. The mean CISS score was compared with that from the children with NBV in the original, unmasked CISS study and also to that of the 221 symptomatic convergence insufficiency (CI) children enrolled in the CITT. Results. The mean (±standard deviation) CISS score for 46 subjects with NBV was 10.4 (±8.1). This was comparable with our prior unmasked NBV study (mean = 8.1 (±6.2); p = 0.11) but was significantly different from that of the CITT CI group (mean = 29.8 ± 9.0; p < 0.001). Eighty-three percent of these NBV subjects scored <16 on the CISS, which is not statistically different from the 87.5% found in the original unmasked study (p = 0.49). Conclusions. Examiner bias did not affect the CISS scores for subjects with NBV in our prior study. The CISS continues to be a valid instrument for quantifying symptoms in 9 to <18-year-old children. These results also confirm the validity of a cut-point of ≥16 in distinguishing children with symptomatic CI from those with NBV.

Results of ocular dominance testing depend on assessment method

PURPOSE We developed a near ocular dominance test modeled after the distance hole-in-the-card test and assessed both test-retest reliability of four tests of ocular dominance and agreement between tests. METHODS Forty-six subjects aged 18 to 78 years with visual acuity 20/40 or better in each eye were enrolled from a primary care practice. All subjects had normal eye examinations, with the exception of refractive error, and were examined in their habitual correction. Subjects were tested twice each with the distance hole-in-the-card test, new near hole-in-the-card test, near convergence test, and the Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group fixation preference test. RESULTS There was excellent test-retest reliability for each ocular dominance test. Nevertheless, there was only moderate to slight agreement between each possible pairing of tests. CONCLUSIONS Results of ocular dominance tests vary depending on both the testing distance and the specific activity performed as part of the testing procedure.

A randomized trial of adding a plano lens to atropine for amblyopia

BACKGROUND Some children have residual amblyopia after treatment with atropine eyedrops for amblyopia due to strabismus and/or anisometropia. We conducted a randomized clinical trial to evaluate the effectiveness of augmenting the effect of atropine by changing the lens over the fellow eye to plano in children with residual amblyopia. METHODS A total of 73 children 3 to <8 years of age (mean, 5.8 years) with stable residual amblyopia (range, 20/32 to 20/160, mean 20/63(+1)) were enrolled after at least 12 weeks of atropine treatment of the fellow eye. Participants were randomly assigned to continuing weekend atropine alone or wearing a plano lens over the fellow eye (while continuing atropine). The primary outcome was assessed at 10 weeks, and participants were followed until improvement ceased. RESULTS At the 10-week primary outcome visit, amblyopic-eye visual acuity had improved an average of 1.1 lines with the plano lens and 0.6 lines with atropine only (difference adjusted for baseline visual acuity = + 0.5 line; 95% CI, -0.1 to +1.2). At the primary outcome or later visit when the best-measured visual acuity was observed, the mean amblyopic-eye improvement from baseline was 1.9 lines with the plano lens and 0.8 lines with atropine only. CONCLUSIONS When amblyopic-eye visual acuity stops improving with atropine treatment, there may be a small benefit to augmenting atropine therapy with a plano lens over the fellow eye. However, the effect was not statistically significant, and the large confidence interval raises the possibility of no benefit or a benefit larger than we observed. A larger study would be necessary to get a more precise estimate of the treatment effect.

An abbreviated reading speed test.

Purpose. The Minnesota Low-Vision Reading Test (MNREAD) has been developed to measure reading speed. An abbreviated version of the MNREAD test was developed that presented only three large paragraphs and would be easier for children to complete. Methods. Fifty children ages 8 to 18 years, with normal eye examinations or refractive error alone, underwent testing of reading speed using the MNREAD test. All the children read the standard MNREAD paragraphs starting at the 1.0 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) level until they could no longer read the subsequent paragraph. Each eye was tested separately, using the second MNREAD card for the left eye. The standard MNREAD reading speed was calculated by plotting the speed for each paragraph, determining the critical print size, then taking the median value of all the paragraphs above the cutoff paragraph. The proposed abbreviated test reading speed was calculated from the median of three large paragraphs (logMAR, 1.0, 0.9, and 0.8). At a second site, 25 children with a variety of ocular conditions were similarly tested using an alternative abbreviated test (logMAR, 1.3, 1.2, and 1.1). The standard and abbreviated reading speeds were then compared between tests and between eyes using generalized estimating equation and intraclass correlation coefficients. Results. The mean reading method speeds with the standard and abbreviated tests were almost identical [177 words per minute (wpm) ± 46 wpm vs. 178 ± 46 wpm, p = 0.43 for normal children and 140 ± 29 wpm vs. 141 ± 33 wpm, p = 0.35 in children with a variety of ocular conditions]. Conclusion. The new abbreviated version of the MNREAD reading speed test yields similar results to the standard MNREAD test in children. The new abbreviated MNREAD test is faster to administer and appears to be particularly useful for children.