Diagnostic validity of clinical signs associated with a large exophoria at near

Purpose. To analyze the diagnostic validity of accommodative and binocular tests in a sample of patients with a large near exophoria with moderate to severe symptoms. Methods. Two groups of patients between 19 and 35 years were recruited from a university clinic: 33 subjects with large exophoria at near vision and moderate or high visual discomfort and 33 patients with normal heterophoria and low visual discomfort. Visual discomfort was defined using the Conlon survey. A refractive exam and an exhaustive evaluation of accommodation and vergence were assessed. Diagnostic validity by means of receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves, sensitivity (S), specificity (Sp), and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+, LR−) were assessed. This analysis was also carried out considering multiple tests as serial testing strategy. Results. ROC analysis showed the best diagnostic accuracy for receded near point of convergence (NPC) recovery (area = 0.929) and binocular accommodative facility (BAF) (area = 0.886). Using the cut-offs obtained with ROC analysis, the best diagnostic validity was obtained for the combination of NPC recovery and BAF (S  =  0.77, Sp = 1, LR+ = value tending to infinity, LR− = 0.23) and the combination of NPC break and recovery with BAF (S  =  0.73, Sp = 1, LR+ = tending to infinity, LR− = 0.27). Conclusions. NPC and BAF tests were the tests with the best diagnostic accuracy for subjects with large near exophoria and moderate to severe symptoms.

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.