Is there any evidence for the validity of diagnostic criteria used for accommodative and nonstrabismic binocular dysfunctions?

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.

Publishing and impact criteria, and their bearing on Translation Studies: In search of comparability

This paper questions the current concept of quality as used in research assessment rankings and peer review, with special reference to the link often established between impact and the way this impact is measured in the form of citation counting. Taking translation studies as a case study, we will offer a two-level approach to reveal both the macro- and micro-level biases that exist in this regard. We will first review three key aspects related to the idea of the quality of publications, namely peer review, journal indexing, and journal impact factor. We will then pinpoint some of the main macro-level problems regarding current practices and criteria as applied to translation studies, such as Thomson Reuters World of Science's journal coverage, citation patterns, and publication format. Next we will provide a micro-textual and practical perspective, focusing on citation counts and suggesting a series of corrective measures to increase comparability.