Ocular Dominance Diagnosis and Its Influence in Monovision
Purpose To analyze the response of normal emmetropic subjects to different ocular dominance tests and to analyze the influence of this response in surgically induced monovision. Design A prospective study of diagnostic accuracy was carried out to analyze the different tests to determine ocular domin...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | American journal of ophthalmology 2007-08, Vol.144 (2), p.209-216.e1 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 216.e1 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 209 |
container_title | American journal of ophthalmology |
container_volume | 144 |
creator | Seijas, Olga Gómez de Liaño, Pilar Gómez de Liaño, Rosario Roberts, Clare J Piedrahita, Elena Diaz, Ester |
description | Purpose To analyze the response of normal emmetropic subjects to different ocular dominance tests and to analyze the influence of this response in surgically induced monovision. Design A prospective study of diagnostic accuracy was carried out to analyze the different tests to determine ocular dominance, without a gold standard test. Methods Nine different tests were carried out in a group of 51 emmetropic subjects to determine both motor and sensory ocular dominance. For analysis, patients were divided into two groups according to age. Normal ophthalmologic examination results were the inclusion requirement, with normal binocular vision and good stereoacuity. Results A significant percentage of uncertain or ambiguous results in all tests performed was found, except in the hole-in-card and kaleidoscope tests. When the tests were compared, two by two, the correlation or equivalence found was low and was much lower if tests were compared three by three. Conclusions No clear ocular dominance was found in most studied subjects; instead, there must be a constant alternating balance between both eyes in most emmetropic persons, but not in those with pathologic features. This fact would explain the great variability both between and within different kinds of tests. Also, it would establish that the monovision technique is well tolerated in most patients, with unsuccessful results only in those patients with strong or clear dominance. Consequently, it seems appropriate to evaluate patient’s dominance before monovision surgery to exclude those individuals with clear dominance. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.ajo.2007.03.053 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68101311</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S0002939407003364</els_id><sourcerecordid>3556447471</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c464t-1efa9af0f7e0ed4d4f952232fe3205c819b6061e7a6c0958f0e7ef4d9912d60d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU2LFDEQhoMo7rj6A7xIg-it20onnXQUBNn1Y2BlD-o5ZJOKpO1J1mR6Yf-9aWZgYA-eQsjzVqqeIuQlhY4CFe-mzkyp6wFkB6yDgT0iGzpK1dJR0cdkAwB9q5jiZ-RZKVO9CsnlU3JG5cAYhXFD3l_bZTa5uUy7EE202FwG8zumEkpjomu2-9Jso58XXN9CbL6nmO5CCSk-J0-8mQu-OJ7n5NeXzz8vvrVX11-3F5-uWssF37cUvVHGg5cI6LjjXg19z3qPrIfBjlTdCBAUpREW1DB6QImeO6Vo7wQ4dk7eHure5vR3wbLXu1AszrOJmJaixVhlMEor-PoBOKUlx9qbpoJzJVnPZaXogbI5lZLR69scdibfawp61aonXbXqVasGpqvWmnl1rLzc7NCdEkePFXhzBEyxZva5qgzlxKm6Fq7WQh8OHFZhdwGzLjasal3IaPfapfDfNj4-SNs5xFA__IP3WE7T6tJr0D_W_a_rBwnAmODsH9eqp6Y</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1644973247</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Ocular Dominance Diagnosis and Its Influence in Monovision</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Seijas, Olga ; Gómez de Liaño, Pilar ; Gómez de Liaño, Rosario ; Roberts, Clare J ; Piedrahita, Elena ; Diaz, Ester</creator><creatorcontrib>Seijas, Olga ; Gómez de Liaño, Pilar ; Gómez de Liaño, Rosario ; Roberts, Clare J ; Piedrahita, Elena ; Diaz, Ester</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose To analyze the response of normal emmetropic subjects to different ocular dominance tests and to analyze the influence of this response in surgically induced monovision. Design A prospective study of diagnostic accuracy was carried out to analyze the different tests to determine ocular dominance, without a gold standard test. Methods Nine different tests were carried out in a group of 51 emmetropic subjects to determine both motor and sensory ocular dominance. For analysis, patients were divided into two groups according to age. Normal ophthalmologic examination results were the inclusion requirement, with normal binocular vision and good stereoacuity. Results A significant percentage of uncertain or ambiguous results in all tests performed was found, except in the hole-in-card and kaleidoscope tests. When the tests were compared, two by two, the correlation or equivalence found was low and was much lower if tests were compared three by three. Conclusions No clear ocular dominance was found in most studied subjects; instead, there must be a constant alternating balance between both eyes in most emmetropic persons, but not in those with pathologic features. This fact would explain the great variability both between and within different kinds of tests. Also, it would establish that the monovision technique is well tolerated in most patients, with unsuccessful results only in those patients with strong or clear dominance. Consequently, it seems appropriate to evaluate patient’s dominance before monovision surgery to exclude those individuals with clear dominance.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0002-9394</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-1891</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2007.03.053</identifier><identifier>PMID: 17533108</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AJOPAA</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Age ; Biological and medical sciences ; Diagnostic Techniques, Ophthalmological - instrumentation ; Distance Perception - physiology ; Dominance, Ocular - physiology ; Equipment Design ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Miscellaneous ; Ophthalmology ; Patients ; Prospective Studies ; Reference Values ; Reproducibility of Results ; Vision Disorders - diagnosis ; Vision, Binocular - physiology ; Vision, Monocular - physiology</subject><ispartof>American journal of ophthalmology, 2007-08, Vol.144 (2), p.209-216.e1</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2007 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2007 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Limited Aug 2007</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c464t-1efa9af0f7e0ed4d4f952232fe3205c819b6061e7a6c0958f0e7ef4d9912d60d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c464t-1efa9af0f7e0ed4d4f952232fe3205c819b6061e7a6c0958f0e7ef4d9912d60d3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002939407003364$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=19187493$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17533108$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Seijas, Olga</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gómez de Liaño, Pilar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gómez de Liaño, Rosario</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roberts, Clare J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Piedrahita, Elena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Diaz, Ester</creatorcontrib><title>Ocular Dominance Diagnosis and Its Influence in Monovision</title><title>American journal of ophthalmology</title><addtitle>Am J Ophthalmol</addtitle><description>Purpose To analyze the response of normal emmetropic subjects to different ocular dominance tests and to analyze the influence of this response in surgically induced monovision. Design A prospective study of diagnostic accuracy was carried out to analyze the different tests to determine ocular dominance, without a gold standard test. Methods Nine different tests were carried out in a group of 51 emmetropic subjects to determine both motor and sensory ocular dominance. For analysis, patients were divided into two groups according to age. Normal ophthalmologic examination results were the inclusion requirement, with normal binocular vision and good stereoacuity. Results A significant percentage of uncertain or ambiguous results in all tests performed was found, except in the hole-in-card and kaleidoscope tests. When the tests were compared, two by two, the correlation or equivalence found was low and was much lower if tests were compared three by three. Conclusions No clear ocular dominance was found in most studied subjects; instead, there must be a constant alternating balance between both eyes in most emmetropic persons, but not in those with pathologic features. This fact would explain the great variability both between and within different kinds of tests. Also, it would establish that the monovision technique is well tolerated in most patients, with unsuccessful results only in those patients with strong or clear dominance. Consequently, it seems appropriate to evaluate patient’s dominance before monovision surgery to exclude those individuals with clear dominance.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Age</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Diagnostic Techniques, Ophthalmological - instrumentation</subject><subject>Distance Perception - physiology</subject><subject>Dominance, Ocular - physiology</subject><subject>Equipment Design</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Miscellaneous</subject><subject>Ophthalmology</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Reference Values</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Vision Disorders - diagnosis</subject><subject>Vision, Binocular - physiology</subject><subject>Vision, Monocular - physiology</subject><issn>0002-9394</issn><issn>1879-1891</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU2LFDEQhoMo7rj6A7xIg-it20onnXQUBNn1Y2BlD-o5ZJOKpO1J1mR6Yf-9aWZgYA-eQsjzVqqeIuQlhY4CFe-mzkyp6wFkB6yDgT0iGzpK1dJR0cdkAwB9q5jiZ-RZKVO9CsnlU3JG5cAYhXFD3l_bZTa5uUy7EE202FwG8zumEkpjomu2-9Jso58XXN9CbL6nmO5CCSk-J0-8mQu-OJ7n5NeXzz8vvrVX11-3F5-uWssF37cUvVHGg5cI6LjjXg19z3qPrIfBjlTdCBAUpREW1DB6QImeO6Vo7wQ4dk7eHure5vR3wbLXu1AszrOJmJaixVhlMEor-PoBOKUlx9qbpoJzJVnPZaXogbI5lZLR69scdibfawp61aonXbXqVasGpqvWmnl1rLzc7NCdEkePFXhzBEyxZva5qgzlxKm6Fq7WQh8OHFZhdwGzLjasal3IaPfapfDfNj4-SNs5xFA__IP3WE7T6tJr0D_W_a_rBwnAmODsH9eqp6Y</recordid><startdate>20070801</startdate><enddate>20070801</enddate><creator>Seijas, Olga</creator><creator>Gómez de Liaño, Pilar</creator><creator>Gómez de Liaño, Rosario</creator><creator>Roberts, Clare J</creator><creator>Piedrahita, Elena</creator><creator>Diaz, Ester</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20070801</creationdate><title>Ocular Dominance Diagnosis and Its Influence in Monovision</title><author>Seijas, Olga ; Gómez de Liaño, Pilar ; Gómez de Liaño, Rosario ; Roberts, Clare J ; Piedrahita, Elena ; Diaz, Ester</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c464t-1efa9af0f7e0ed4d4f952232fe3205c819b6061e7a6c0958f0e7ef4d9912d60d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Age</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Diagnostic Techniques, Ophthalmological - instrumentation</topic><topic>Distance Perception - physiology</topic><topic>Dominance, Ocular - physiology</topic><topic>Equipment Design</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Miscellaneous</topic><topic>Ophthalmology</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Reference Values</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Vision Disorders - diagnosis</topic><topic>Vision, Binocular - physiology</topic><topic>Vision, Monocular - physiology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Seijas, Olga</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gómez de Liaño, Pilar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gómez de Liaño, Rosario</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roberts, Clare J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Piedrahita, Elena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Diaz, Ester</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>American journal of ophthalmology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Seijas, Olga</au><au>Gómez de Liaño, Pilar</au><au>Gómez de Liaño, Rosario</au><au>Roberts, Clare J</au><au>Piedrahita, Elena</au><au>Diaz, Ester</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Ocular Dominance Diagnosis and Its Influence in Monovision</atitle><jtitle>American journal of ophthalmology</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Ophthalmol</addtitle><date>2007-08-01</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>144</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>209</spage><epage>216.e1</epage><pages>209-216.e1</pages><issn>0002-9394</issn><eissn>1879-1891</eissn><coden>AJOPAA</coden><abstract>Purpose To analyze the response of normal emmetropic subjects to different ocular dominance tests and to analyze the influence of this response in surgically induced monovision. Design A prospective study of diagnostic accuracy was carried out to analyze the different tests to determine ocular dominance, without a gold standard test. Methods Nine different tests were carried out in a group of 51 emmetropic subjects to determine both motor and sensory ocular dominance. For analysis, patients were divided into two groups according to age. Normal ophthalmologic examination results were the inclusion requirement, with normal binocular vision and good stereoacuity. Results A significant percentage of uncertain or ambiguous results in all tests performed was found, except in the hole-in-card and kaleidoscope tests. When the tests were compared, two by two, the correlation or equivalence found was low and was much lower if tests were compared three by three. Conclusions No clear ocular dominance was found in most studied subjects; instead, there must be a constant alternating balance between both eyes in most emmetropic persons, but not in those with pathologic features. This fact would explain the great variability both between and within different kinds of tests. Also, it would establish that the monovision technique is well tolerated in most patients, with unsuccessful results only in those patients with strong or clear dominance. Consequently, it seems appropriate to evaluate patient’s dominance before monovision surgery to exclude those individuals with clear dominance.</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>17533108</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.ajo.2007.03.053</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0002-9394 |
ispartof | American journal of ophthalmology, 2007-08, Vol.144 (2), p.209-216.e1 |
issn | 0002-9394 1879-1891 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68101311 |
source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
subjects | Adolescent Adult Age Biological and medical sciences Diagnostic Techniques, Ophthalmological - instrumentation Distance Perception - physiology Dominance, Ocular - physiology Equipment Design Female Humans Male Medical sciences Middle Aged Miscellaneous Ophthalmology Patients Prospective Studies Reference Values Reproducibility of Results Vision Disorders - diagnosis Vision, Binocular - physiology Vision, Monocular - physiology |
title | Ocular Dominance Diagnosis and Its Influence in Monovision |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-29T14%3A30%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Ocular%20Dominance%20Diagnosis%20and%20Its%20Influence%20in%20Monovision&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20ophthalmology&rft.au=Seijas,%20Olga&rft.date=2007-08-01&rft.volume=144&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=209&rft.epage=216.e1&rft.pages=209-216.e1&rft.issn=0002-9394&rft.eissn=1879-1891&rft.coden=AJOPAA&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ajo.2007.03.053&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3556447471%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1644973247&rft_id=info:pmid/17533108&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S0002939407003364&rfr_iscdi=true |