Routine binocular examination of young Taiwanese adults as a predictor of visual behavior performance

Background Morgan and Scheiman’s Optometric Extension Program (OEP) expected binocular vision findings have longstanding use in optometry. With technological advances, the demands and standards of binocular function have changed. This study aimed to investigate which binocular visual functions can effectively predict visual behavior performance. Methods Participants aged 15–24 years were recruited from two colleges and two universities. After completing the CSMU-Visual Behavioral Performance questionnaire (CSMU-VBP, with four components: near work, visual perception, visual comfort, and whole-body balance), participants were divided into symptomatic and asymptomatic groups based on questionnaire findings (cutoff: < 12 vs. ≥ 12 symptoms). Then a 24-step binocular visual examination was undertaken. Data were analyzed with one-sample, Student’s, and paired t-tests. Additionally, receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to determine the predictors of binocular visual function required for near work, visual perception, visual comfort, and body balance dimensions. Results Among 308 participants, 43 (14%) and 265 (86%) were symptomatic and asymptomatic, respectively. Among the 46 participants with abnormal binocular vision, 36 (78%) reported that they had no obvious symptoms. The commonest dysfunctions were accommodative excess and convergence excess. Most of the binocular visual findings significantly diverged from traditional normal values: amplitude of accommodation, as well as base-in prism to break and recovery points at distance were higher than traditional normal values, whereas others were lower than traditional normal values. Total CSMU-VBP scores indicated that the asymptomatic and symptomatic groups had significant differences in DBO recovery (t = 2.334, p = 0.020) and BAF (t = 1.984, p = 0.048). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis yielded the following binocular visual functional cutoff points: near work (DBO blur < 7, DBO recovery < 5.5), visual perception (MAF < 10.5, BAF < 10.25), visual comfort (DLP < − 2.25, DBI break > 11.5, NBI blur > 15, NBI break > 17.5, NBI recovery > 13, NPC < 5.75), and body balance (NFD_H > − 0.5, gradient AC/A [minus] > 2.25, NPC < 4.75). Conclusions The mean values of binocular visual function among young Taiwanese adults were statistically different from traditional normative values. Further research is required to confirm whether these findings reflect impaired binocular vision or stringent criteria. Assessments of binocular visual function, especially binocular accommodation sensitivity, are crucial in routine optometric examination. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Chen, Shyan-Tarng [verfasserIn] Su, Kuo-Chen Wang, Po-Hsin Zhong, Xiang-Yin Cheng, Ching-Ying

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2023

Schlagwörter:	Binocular visual function Binocular accommodative examination Visual behavior performance

Anmerkung:	© The Author(s) 2023

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: BMC ophthalmology - London : BioMed Central, 2001, 23(2023), 1 vom: 01. Feb.
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:23 ; year:2023 ; number:1 ; day:01 ; month:02

Links:	Volltext

DOI / URN:	10.1186/s12886-022-02731-1

Katalog-ID:	SPR051408503

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	SPR051408503
003	DE-627
005	20230510061856.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230508s2023 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1186/s12886-022-02731-1 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)SPR051408503
035			\|a (SPR)s12886-022-02731-1-e
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
100	1		\|a Chen, Shyan-Tarng \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Routine binocular examination of young Taiwanese adults as a predictor of visual behavior performance
264		1	\|c 2023
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
500			\|a © The Author(s) 2023
520			\|a Background Morgan and Scheiman’s Optometric Extension Program (OEP) expected binocular vision findings have longstanding use in optometry. With technological advances, the demands and standards of binocular function have changed. This study aimed to investigate which binocular visual functions can effectively predict visual behavior performance. Methods Participants aged 15–24 years were recruited from two colleges and two universities. After completing the CSMU-Visual Behavioral Performance questionnaire (CSMU-VBP, with four components: near work, visual perception, visual comfort, and whole-body balance), participants were divided into symptomatic and asymptomatic groups based on questionnaire findings (cutoff: < 12 vs. ≥ 12 symptoms). Then a 24-step binocular visual examination was undertaken. Data were analyzed with one-sample, Student’s, and paired t-tests. Additionally, receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to determine the predictors of binocular visual function required for near work, visual perception, visual comfort, and body balance dimensions. Results Among 308 participants, 43 (14%) and 265 (86%) were symptomatic and asymptomatic, respectively. Among the 46 participants with abnormal binocular vision, 36 (78%) reported that they had no obvious symptoms. The commonest dysfunctions were accommodative excess and convergence excess. Most of the binocular visual findings significantly diverged from traditional normal values: amplitude of accommodation, as well as base-in prism to break and recovery points at distance were higher than traditional normal values, whereas others were lower than traditional normal values. Total CSMU-VBP scores indicated that the asymptomatic and symptomatic groups had significant differences in DBO recovery (t = 2.334, p = 0.020) and BAF (t = 1.984, p = 0.048). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis yielded the following binocular visual functional cutoff points: near work (DBO blur < 7, DBO recovery < 5.5), visual perception (MAF < 10.5, BAF < 10.25), visual comfort (DLP < − 2.25, DBI break > 11.5, NBI blur > 15, NBI break > 17.5, NBI recovery > 13, NPC < 5.75), and body balance (NFD_H > − 0.5, gradient AC/A [minus] > 2.25, NPC < 4.75). Conclusions The mean values of binocular visual function among young Taiwanese adults were statistically different from traditional normative values. Further research is required to confirm whether these findings reflect impaired binocular vision or stringent criteria. Assessments of binocular visual function, especially binocular accommodation sensitivity, are crucial in routine optometric examination.
650		4	\|a Binocular visual function \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Binocular accommodative examination \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Visual behavior performance \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
700	1		\|a Su, Kuo-Chen \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Wang, Po-Hsin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Zhong, Xiang-Yin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Cheng, Ching-Ying \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i Enthalten in \|t BMC ophthalmology \|d London : BioMed Central, 2001 \|g 23(2023), 1 vom: 01. Feb. \|w (DE-627)331018772 \|w (DE-600)2050436-6 \|x 1471-2415 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:23 \|g year:2023 \|g number:1 \|g day:01 \|g month:02
856	4	0	\|u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-022-02731-1 \|z kostenfrei \|3 Volltext
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_SPRINGER
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 23 \|j 2023 \|e 1 \|b 01 \|c 02

Indexfelder

author_variant	s t c stc k c s kcs p h w phw x y z xyz c y c cyc
matchkey_str	article:14712415:2023----::otnbnclrxmntooyugawnsautaardcoovs
hierarchy_sort_str	2023
publishDate	2023
allfields	10.1186/s12886-022-02731-1 doi (DE-627)SPR051408503 (SPR)s12886-022-02731-1-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Chen, Shyan-Tarng verfasserin aut Routine binocular examination of young Taiwanese adults as a predictor of visual behavior performance 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2023 Background Morgan and Scheiman’s Optometric Extension Program (OEP) expected binocular vision findings have longstanding use in optometry. With technological advances, the demands and standards of binocular function have changed. This study aimed to investigate which binocular visual functions can effectively predict visual behavior performance. Methods Participants aged 15–24 years were recruited from two colleges and two universities. After completing the CSMU-Visual Behavioral Performance questionnaire (CSMU-VBP, with four components: near work, visual perception, visual comfort, and whole-body balance), participants were divided into symptomatic and asymptomatic groups based on questionnaire findings (cutoff: < 12 vs. ≥ 12 symptoms). Then a 24-step binocular visual examination was undertaken. Data were analyzed with one-sample, Student’s, and paired t-tests. Additionally, receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to determine the predictors of binocular visual function required for near work, visual perception, visual comfort, and body balance dimensions. Results Among 308 participants, 43 (14%) and 265 (86%) were symptomatic and asymptomatic, respectively. Among the 46 participants with abnormal binocular vision, 36 (78%) reported that they had no obvious symptoms. The commonest dysfunctions were accommodative excess and convergence excess. Most of the binocular visual findings significantly diverged from traditional normal values: amplitude of accommodation, as well as base-in prism to break and recovery points at distance were higher than traditional normal values, whereas others were lower than traditional normal values. Total CSMU-VBP scores indicated that the asymptomatic and symptomatic groups had significant differences in DBO recovery (t = 2.334, p = 0.020) and BAF (t = 1.984, p = 0.048). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis yielded the following binocular visual functional cutoff points: near work (DBO blur < 7, DBO recovery < 5.5), visual perception (MAF < 10.5, BAF < 10.25), visual comfort (DLP < − 2.25, DBI break > 11.5, NBI blur > 15, NBI break > 17.5, NBI recovery > 13, NPC < 5.75), and body balance (NFD_H > − 0.5, gradient AC/A [minus] > 2.25, NPC < 4.75). Conclusions The mean values of binocular visual function among young Taiwanese adults were statistically different from traditional normative values. Further research is required to confirm whether these findings reflect impaired binocular vision or stringent criteria. Assessments of binocular visual function, especially binocular accommodation sensitivity, are crucial in routine optometric examination. Binocular visual function (dpeaa)DE-He213 Binocular accommodative examination (dpeaa)DE-He213 Visual behavior performance (dpeaa)DE-He213 Su, Kuo-Chen aut Wang, Po-Hsin aut Zhong, Xiang-Yin aut Cheng, Ching-Ying aut Enthalten in BMC ophthalmology London : BioMed Central, 2001 23(2023), 1 vom: 01. Feb. (DE-627)331018772 (DE-600)2050436-6 1471-2415 nnns volume:23 year:2023 number:1 day:01 month:02 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-022-02731-1 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 23 2023 1 01 02
spelling	10.1186/s12886-022-02731-1 doi (DE-627)SPR051408503 (SPR)s12886-022-02731-1-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Chen, Shyan-Tarng verfasserin aut Routine binocular examination of young Taiwanese adults as a predictor of visual behavior performance 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2023 Background Morgan and Scheiman’s Optometric Extension Program (OEP) expected binocular vision findings have longstanding use in optometry. With technological advances, the demands and standards of binocular function have changed. This study aimed to investigate which binocular visual functions can effectively predict visual behavior performance. Methods Participants aged 15–24 years were recruited from two colleges and two universities. After completing the CSMU-Visual Behavioral Performance questionnaire (CSMU-VBP, with four components: near work, visual perception, visual comfort, and whole-body balance), participants were divided into symptomatic and asymptomatic groups based on questionnaire findings (cutoff: < 12 vs. ≥ 12 symptoms). Then a 24-step binocular visual examination was undertaken. Data were analyzed with one-sample, Student’s, and paired t-tests. Additionally, receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to determine the predictors of binocular visual function required for near work, visual perception, visual comfort, and body balance dimensions. Results Among 308 participants, 43 (14%) and 265 (86%) were symptomatic and asymptomatic, respectively. Among the 46 participants with abnormal binocular vision, 36 (78%) reported that they had no obvious symptoms. The commonest dysfunctions were accommodative excess and convergence excess. Most of the binocular visual findings significantly diverged from traditional normal values: amplitude of accommodation, as well as base-in prism to break and recovery points at distance were higher than traditional normal values, whereas others were lower than traditional normal values. Total CSMU-VBP scores indicated that the asymptomatic and symptomatic groups had significant differences in DBO recovery (t = 2.334, p = 0.020) and BAF (t = 1.984, p = 0.048). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis yielded the following binocular visual functional cutoff points: near work (DBO blur < 7, DBO recovery < 5.5), visual perception (MAF < 10.5, BAF < 10.25), visual comfort (DLP < − 2.25, DBI break > 11.5, NBI blur > 15, NBI break > 17.5, NBI recovery > 13, NPC < 5.75), and body balance (NFD_H > − 0.5, gradient AC/A [minus] > 2.25, NPC < 4.75). Conclusions The mean values of binocular visual function among young Taiwanese adults were statistically different from traditional normative values. Further research is required to confirm whether these findings reflect impaired binocular vision or stringent criteria. Assessments of binocular visual function, especially binocular accommodation sensitivity, are crucial in routine optometric examination. Binocular visual function (dpeaa)DE-He213 Binocular accommodative examination (dpeaa)DE-He213 Visual behavior performance (dpeaa)DE-He213 Su, Kuo-Chen aut Wang, Po-Hsin aut Zhong, Xiang-Yin aut Cheng, Ching-Ying aut Enthalten in BMC ophthalmology London : BioMed Central, 2001 23(2023), 1 vom: 01. Feb. (DE-627)331018772 (DE-600)2050436-6 1471-2415 nnns volume:23 year:2023 number:1 day:01 month:02 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-022-02731-1 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 23 2023 1 01 02
allfields_unstemmed	10.1186/s12886-022-02731-1 doi (DE-627)SPR051408503 (SPR)s12886-022-02731-1-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Chen, Shyan-Tarng verfasserin aut Routine binocular examination of young Taiwanese adults as a predictor of visual behavior performance 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2023 Background Morgan and Scheiman’s Optometric Extension Program (OEP) expected binocular vision findings have longstanding use in optometry. With technological advances, the demands and standards of binocular function have changed. This study aimed to investigate which binocular visual functions can effectively predict visual behavior performance. Methods Participants aged 15–24 years were recruited from two colleges and two universities. After completing the CSMU-Visual Behavioral Performance questionnaire (CSMU-VBP, with four components: near work, visual perception, visual comfort, and whole-body balance), participants were divided into symptomatic and asymptomatic groups based on questionnaire findings (cutoff: < 12 vs. ≥ 12 symptoms). Then a 24-step binocular visual examination was undertaken. Data were analyzed with one-sample, Student’s, and paired t-tests. Additionally, receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to determine the predictors of binocular visual function required for near work, visual perception, visual comfort, and body balance dimensions. Results Among 308 participants, 43 (14%) and 265 (86%) were symptomatic and asymptomatic, respectively. Among the 46 participants with abnormal binocular vision, 36 (78%) reported that they had no obvious symptoms. The commonest dysfunctions were accommodative excess and convergence excess. Most of the binocular visual findings significantly diverged from traditional normal values: amplitude of accommodation, as well as base-in prism to break and recovery points at distance were higher than traditional normal values, whereas others were lower than traditional normal values. Total CSMU-VBP scores indicated that the asymptomatic and symptomatic groups had significant differences in DBO recovery (t = 2.334, p = 0.020) and BAF (t = 1.984, p = 0.048). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis yielded the following binocular visual functional cutoff points: near work (DBO blur < 7, DBO recovery < 5.5), visual perception (MAF < 10.5, BAF < 10.25), visual comfort (DLP < − 2.25, DBI break > 11.5, NBI blur > 15, NBI break > 17.5, NBI recovery > 13, NPC < 5.75), and body balance (NFD_H > − 0.5, gradient AC/A [minus] > 2.25, NPC < 4.75). Conclusions The mean values of binocular visual function among young Taiwanese adults were statistically different from traditional normative values. Further research is required to confirm whether these findings reflect impaired binocular vision or stringent criteria. Assessments of binocular visual function, especially binocular accommodation sensitivity, are crucial in routine optometric examination. Binocular visual function (dpeaa)DE-He213 Binocular accommodative examination (dpeaa)DE-He213 Visual behavior performance (dpeaa)DE-He213 Su, Kuo-Chen aut Wang, Po-Hsin aut Zhong, Xiang-Yin aut Cheng, Ching-Ying aut Enthalten in BMC ophthalmology London : BioMed Central, 2001 23(2023), 1 vom: 01. Feb. (DE-627)331018772 (DE-600)2050436-6 1471-2415 nnns volume:23 year:2023 number:1 day:01 month:02 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-022-02731-1 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 23 2023 1 01 02
allfieldsGer	10.1186/s12886-022-02731-1 doi (DE-627)SPR051408503 (SPR)s12886-022-02731-1-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Chen, Shyan-Tarng verfasserin aut Routine binocular examination of young Taiwanese adults as a predictor of visual behavior performance 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2023 Background Morgan and Scheiman’s Optometric Extension Program (OEP) expected binocular vision findings have longstanding use in optometry. With technological advances, the demands and standards of binocular function have changed. This study aimed to investigate which binocular visual functions can effectively predict visual behavior performance. Methods Participants aged 15–24 years were recruited from two colleges and two universities. After completing the CSMU-Visual Behavioral Performance questionnaire (CSMU-VBP, with four components: near work, visual perception, visual comfort, and whole-body balance), participants were divided into symptomatic and asymptomatic groups based on questionnaire findings (cutoff: < 12 vs. ≥ 12 symptoms). Then a 24-step binocular visual examination was undertaken. Data were analyzed with one-sample, Student’s, and paired t-tests. Additionally, receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to determine the predictors of binocular visual function required for near work, visual perception, visual comfort, and body balance dimensions. Results Among 308 participants, 43 (14%) and 265 (86%) were symptomatic and asymptomatic, respectively. Among the 46 participants with abnormal binocular vision, 36 (78%) reported that they had no obvious symptoms. The commonest dysfunctions were accommodative excess and convergence excess. Most of the binocular visual findings significantly diverged from traditional normal values: amplitude of accommodation, as well as base-in prism to break and recovery points at distance were higher than traditional normal values, whereas others were lower than traditional normal values. Total CSMU-VBP scores indicated that the asymptomatic and symptomatic groups had significant differences in DBO recovery (t = 2.334, p = 0.020) and BAF (t = 1.984, p = 0.048). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis yielded the following binocular visual functional cutoff points: near work (DBO blur < 7, DBO recovery < 5.5), visual perception (MAF < 10.5, BAF < 10.25), visual comfort (DLP < − 2.25, DBI break > 11.5, NBI blur > 15, NBI break > 17.5, NBI recovery > 13, NPC < 5.75), and body balance (NFD_H > − 0.5, gradient AC/A [minus] > 2.25, NPC < 4.75). Conclusions The mean values of binocular visual function among young Taiwanese adults were statistically different from traditional normative values. Further research is required to confirm whether these findings reflect impaired binocular vision or stringent criteria. Assessments of binocular visual function, especially binocular accommodation sensitivity, are crucial in routine optometric examination. Binocular visual function (dpeaa)DE-He213 Binocular accommodative examination (dpeaa)DE-He213 Visual behavior performance (dpeaa)DE-He213 Su, Kuo-Chen aut Wang, Po-Hsin aut Zhong, Xiang-Yin aut Cheng, Ching-Ying aut Enthalten in BMC ophthalmology London : BioMed Central, 2001 23(2023), 1 vom: 01. Feb. (DE-627)331018772 (DE-600)2050436-6 1471-2415 nnns volume:23 year:2023 number:1 day:01 month:02 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-022-02731-1 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 23 2023 1 01 02
allfieldsSound	10.1186/s12886-022-02731-1 doi (DE-627)SPR051408503 (SPR)s12886-022-02731-1-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Chen, Shyan-Tarng verfasserin aut Routine binocular examination of young Taiwanese adults as a predictor of visual behavior performance 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2023 Background Morgan and Scheiman’s Optometric Extension Program (OEP) expected binocular vision findings have longstanding use in optometry. With technological advances, the demands and standards of binocular function have changed. This study aimed to investigate which binocular visual functions can effectively predict visual behavior performance. Methods Participants aged 15–24 years were recruited from two colleges and two universities. After completing the CSMU-Visual Behavioral Performance questionnaire (CSMU-VBP, with four components: near work, visual perception, visual comfort, and whole-body balance), participants were divided into symptomatic and asymptomatic groups based on questionnaire findings (cutoff: < 12 vs. ≥ 12 symptoms). Then a 24-step binocular visual examination was undertaken. Data were analyzed with one-sample, Student’s, and paired t-tests. Additionally, receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to determine the predictors of binocular visual function required for near work, visual perception, visual comfort, and body balance dimensions. Results Among 308 participants, 43 (14%) and 265 (86%) were symptomatic and asymptomatic, respectively. Among the 46 participants with abnormal binocular vision, 36 (78%) reported that they had no obvious symptoms. The commonest dysfunctions were accommodative excess and convergence excess. Most of the binocular visual findings significantly diverged from traditional normal values: amplitude of accommodation, as well as base-in prism to break and recovery points at distance were higher than traditional normal values, whereas others were lower than traditional normal values. Total CSMU-VBP scores indicated that the asymptomatic and symptomatic groups had significant differences in DBO recovery (t = 2.334, p = 0.020) and BAF (t = 1.984, p = 0.048). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis yielded the following binocular visual functional cutoff points: near work (DBO blur < 7, DBO recovery < 5.5), visual perception (MAF < 10.5, BAF < 10.25), visual comfort (DLP < − 2.25, DBI break > 11.5, NBI blur > 15, NBI break > 17.5, NBI recovery > 13, NPC < 5.75), and body balance (NFD_H > − 0.5, gradient AC/A [minus] > 2.25, NPC < 4.75). Conclusions The mean values of binocular visual function among young Taiwanese adults were statistically different from traditional normative values. Further research is required to confirm whether these findings reflect impaired binocular vision or stringent criteria. Assessments of binocular visual function, especially binocular accommodation sensitivity, are crucial in routine optometric examination. Binocular visual function (dpeaa)DE-He213 Binocular accommodative examination (dpeaa)DE-He213 Visual behavior performance (dpeaa)DE-He213 Su, Kuo-Chen aut Wang, Po-Hsin aut Zhong, Xiang-Yin aut Cheng, Ching-Ying aut Enthalten in BMC ophthalmology London : BioMed Central, 2001 23(2023), 1 vom: 01. Feb. (DE-627)331018772 (DE-600)2050436-6 1471-2415 nnns volume:23 year:2023 number:1 day:01 month:02 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-022-02731-1 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 23 2023 1 01 02
language	English
source	Enthalten in BMC ophthalmology 23(2023), 1 vom: 01. Feb. volume:23 year:2023 number:1 day:01 month:02
sourceStr	Enthalten in BMC ophthalmology 23(2023), 1 vom: 01. Feb. volume:23 year:2023 number:1 day:01 month:02
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Binocular visual function Binocular accommodative examination Visual behavior performance
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	BMC ophthalmology
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Chen, Shyan-Tarng @@aut@@ Su, Kuo-Chen @@aut@@ Wang, Po-Hsin @@aut@@ Zhong, Xiang-Yin @@aut@@ Cheng, Ching-Ying @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2023-02-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	331018772
id	SPR051408503
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR051408503</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230510061856.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230508s2023 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12886-022-02731-1</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR051408503</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12886-022-02731-1-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Chen, Shyan-Tarng</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Routine binocular examination of young Taiwanese adults as a predictor of visual behavior performance</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Morgan and Scheiman’s Optometric Extension Program (OEP) expected binocular vision findings have longstanding use in optometry. With technological advances, the demands and standards of binocular function have changed. This study aimed to investigate which binocular visual functions can effectively predict visual behavior performance. Methods Participants aged 15–24 years were recruited from two colleges and two universities. After completing the CSMU-Visual Behavioral Performance questionnaire (CSMU-VBP, with four components: near work, visual perception, visual comfort, and whole-body balance), participants were divided into symptomatic and asymptomatic groups based on questionnaire findings (cutoff: < 12 vs. ≥ 12 symptoms). Then a 24-step binocular visual examination was undertaken. Data were analyzed with one-sample, Student’s, and paired t-tests. Additionally, receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to determine the predictors of binocular visual function required for near work, visual perception, visual comfort, and body balance dimensions. Results Among 308 participants, 43 (14%) and 265 (86%) were symptomatic and asymptomatic, respectively. Among the 46 participants with abnormal binocular vision, 36 (78%) reported that they had no obvious symptoms. The commonest dysfunctions were accommodative excess and convergence excess. Most of the binocular visual findings significantly diverged from traditional normal values: amplitude of accommodation, as well as base-in prism to break and recovery points at distance were higher than traditional normal values, whereas others were lower than traditional normal values. Total CSMU-VBP scores indicated that the asymptomatic and symptomatic groups had significant differences in DBO recovery (t = 2.334, p = 0.020) and BAF (t = 1.984, p = 0.048). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis yielded the following binocular visual functional cutoff points: near work (DBO blur < 7, DBO recovery < 5.5), visual perception (MAF < 10.5, BAF < 10.25), visual comfort (DLP < − 2.25, DBI break > 11.5, NBI blur > 15, NBI break > 17.5, NBI recovery > 13, NPC < 5.75), and body balance (NFD_H > − 0.5, gradient AC/A [minus] > 2.25, NPC < 4.75). Conclusions The mean values of binocular visual function among young Taiwanese adults were statistically different from traditional normative values. Further research is required to confirm whether these findings reflect impaired binocular vision or stringent criteria. Assessments of binocular visual function, especially binocular accommodation sensitivity, are crucial in routine optometric examination.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Binocular visual function</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Binocular accommodative examination</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Visual behavior performance</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Su, Kuo-Chen</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wang, Po-Hsin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zhong, Xiang-Yin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Cheng, Ching-Ying</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC ophthalmology</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2001</subfield><subfield code="g">23(2023), 1 vom: 01. Feb.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)331018772</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2050436-6</subfield><subfield code="x">1471-2415</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:23</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2023</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:01</subfield><subfield code="g">month:02</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-022-02731-1</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">23</subfield><subfield code="j">2023</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">01</subfield><subfield code="c">02</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Chen, Shyan-Tarng
spellingShingle	Chen, Shyan-Tarng misc Binocular visual function misc Binocular accommodative examination misc Visual behavior performance Routine binocular examination of young Taiwanese adults as a predictor of visual behavior performance
authorStr	Chen, Shyan-Tarng
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)331018772
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut
collection	springer
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	1471-2415
topic_title	Routine binocular examination of young Taiwanese adults as a predictor of visual behavior performance Binocular visual function (dpeaa)DE-He213 Binocular accommodative examination (dpeaa)DE-He213 Visual behavior performance (dpeaa)DE-He213
topic	misc Binocular visual function misc Binocular accommodative examination misc Visual behavior performance
topic_unstemmed	misc Binocular visual function misc Binocular accommodative examination misc Visual behavior performance
topic_browse	misc Binocular visual function misc Binocular accommodative examination misc Visual behavior performance
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	BMC ophthalmology
hierarchy_parent_id	331018772
hierarchy_top_title	BMC ophthalmology
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)331018772 (DE-600)2050436-6
title	Routine binocular examination of young Taiwanese adults as a predictor of visual behavior performance
ctrlnum	(DE-627)SPR051408503 (SPR)s12886-022-02731-1-e
title_full	Routine binocular examination of young Taiwanese adults as a predictor of visual behavior performance
author_sort	Chen, Shyan-Tarng
journal	BMC ophthalmology
journalStr	BMC ophthalmology
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2023
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Chen, Shyan-Tarng Su, Kuo-Chen Wang, Po-Hsin Zhong, Xiang-Yin Cheng, Ching-Ying
container_volume	23
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Chen, Shyan-Tarng
doi_str_mv	10.1186/s12886-022-02731-1
title_sort	routine binocular examination of young taiwanese adults as a predictor of visual behavior performance
title_auth	Routine binocular examination of young Taiwanese adults as a predictor of visual behavior performance
abstract	Background Morgan and Scheiman’s Optometric Extension Program (OEP) expected binocular vision findings have longstanding use in optometry. With technological advances, the demands and standards of binocular function have changed. This study aimed to investigate which binocular visual functions can effectively predict visual behavior performance. Methods Participants aged 15–24 years were recruited from two colleges and two universities. After completing the CSMU-Visual Behavioral Performance questionnaire (CSMU-VBP, with four components: near work, visual perception, visual comfort, and whole-body balance), participants were divided into symptomatic and asymptomatic groups based on questionnaire findings (cutoff: < 12 vs. ≥ 12 symptoms). Then a 24-step binocular visual examination was undertaken. Data were analyzed with one-sample, Student’s, and paired t-tests. Additionally, receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to determine the predictors of binocular visual function required for near work, visual perception, visual comfort, and body balance dimensions. Results Among 308 participants, 43 (14%) and 265 (86%) were symptomatic and asymptomatic, respectively. Among the 46 participants with abnormal binocular vision, 36 (78%) reported that they had no obvious symptoms. The commonest dysfunctions were accommodative excess and convergence excess. Most of the binocular visual findings significantly diverged from traditional normal values: amplitude of accommodation, as well as base-in prism to break and recovery points at distance were higher than traditional normal values, whereas others were lower than traditional normal values. Total CSMU-VBP scores indicated that the asymptomatic and symptomatic groups had significant differences in DBO recovery (t = 2.334, p = 0.020) and BAF (t = 1.984, p = 0.048). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis yielded the following binocular visual functional cutoff points: near work (DBO blur < 7, DBO recovery < 5.5), visual perception (MAF < 10.5, BAF < 10.25), visual comfort (DLP < − 2.25, DBI break > 11.5, NBI blur > 15, NBI break > 17.5, NBI recovery > 13, NPC < 5.75), and body balance (NFD_H > − 0.5, gradient AC/A [minus] > 2.25, NPC < 4.75). Conclusions The mean values of binocular visual function among young Taiwanese adults were statistically different from traditional normative values. Further research is required to confirm whether these findings reflect impaired binocular vision or stringent criteria. Assessments of binocular visual function, especially binocular accommodation sensitivity, are crucial in routine optometric examination. © The Author(s) 2023
abstractGer	Background Morgan and Scheiman’s Optometric Extension Program (OEP) expected binocular vision findings have longstanding use in optometry. With technological advances, the demands and standards of binocular function have changed. This study aimed to investigate which binocular visual functions can effectively predict visual behavior performance. Methods Participants aged 15–24 years were recruited from two colleges and two universities. After completing the CSMU-Visual Behavioral Performance questionnaire (CSMU-VBP, with four components: near work, visual perception, visual comfort, and whole-body balance), participants were divided into symptomatic and asymptomatic groups based on questionnaire findings (cutoff: < 12 vs. ≥ 12 symptoms). Then a 24-step binocular visual examination was undertaken. Data were analyzed with one-sample, Student’s, and paired t-tests. Additionally, receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to determine the predictors of binocular visual function required for near work, visual perception, visual comfort, and body balance dimensions. Results Among 308 participants, 43 (14%) and 265 (86%) were symptomatic and asymptomatic, respectively. Among the 46 participants with abnormal binocular vision, 36 (78%) reported that they had no obvious symptoms. The commonest dysfunctions were accommodative excess and convergence excess. Most of the binocular visual findings significantly diverged from traditional normal values: amplitude of accommodation, as well as base-in prism to break and recovery points at distance were higher than traditional normal values, whereas others were lower than traditional normal values. Total CSMU-VBP scores indicated that the asymptomatic and symptomatic groups had significant differences in DBO recovery (t = 2.334, p = 0.020) and BAF (t = 1.984, p = 0.048). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis yielded the following binocular visual functional cutoff points: near work (DBO blur < 7, DBO recovery < 5.5), visual perception (MAF < 10.5, BAF < 10.25), visual comfort (DLP < − 2.25, DBI break > 11.5, NBI blur > 15, NBI break > 17.5, NBI recovery > 13, NPC < 5.75), and body balance (NFD_H > − 0.5, gradient AC/A [minus] > 2.25, NPC < 4.75). Conclusions The mean values of binocular visual function among young Taiwanese adults were statistically different from traditional normative values. Further research is required to confirm whether these findings reflect impaired binocular vision or stringent criteria. Assessments of binocular visual function, especially binocular accommodation sensitivity, are crucial in routine optometric examination. © The Author(s) 2023
abstract_unstemmed	Background Morgan and Scheiman’s Optometric Extension Program (OEP) expected binocular vision findings have longstanding use in optometry. With technological advances, the demands and standards of binocular function have changed. This study aimed to investigate which binocular visual functions can effectively predict visual behavior performance. Methods Participants aged 15–24 years were recruited from two colleges and two universities. After completing the CSMU-Visual Behavioral Performance questionnaire (CSMU-VBP, with four components: near work, visual perception, visual comfort, and whole-body balance), participants were divided into symptomatic and asymptomatic groups based on questionnaire findings (cutoff: < 12 vs. ≥ 12 symptoms). Then a 24-step binocular visual examination was undertaken. Data were analyzed with one-sample, Student’s, and paired t-tests. Additionally, receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to determine the predictors of binocular visual function required for near work, visual perception, visual comfort, and body balance dimensions. Results Among 308 participants, 43 (14%) and 265 (86%) were symptomatic and asymptomatic, respectively. Among the 46 participants with abnormal binocular vision, 36 (78%) reported that they had no obvious symptoms. The commonest dysfunctions were accommodative excess and convergence excess. Most of the binocular visual findings significantly diverged from traditional normal values: amplitude of accommodation, as well as base-in prism to break and recovery points at distance were higher than traditional normal values, whereas others were lower than traditional normal values. Total CSMU-VBP scores indicated that the asymptomatic and symptomatic groups had significant differences in DBO recovery (t = 2.334, p = 0.020) and BAF (t = 1.984, p = 0.048). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis yielded the following binocular visual functional cutoff points: near work (DBO blur < 7, DBO recovery < 5.5), visual perception (MAF < 10.5, BAF < 10.25), visual comfort (DLP < − 2.25, DBI break > 11.5, NBI blur > 15, NBI break > 17.5, NBI recovery > 13, NPC < 5.75), and body balance (NFD_H > − 0.5, gradient AC/A [minus] > 2.25, NPC < 4.75). Conclusions The mean values of binocular visual function among young Taiwanese adults were statistically different from traditional normative values. Further research is required to confirm whether these findings reflect impaired binocular vision or stringent criteria. Assessments of binocular visual function, especially binocular accommodation sensitivity, are crucial in routine optometric examination. © The Author(s) 2023
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	1
title_short	Routine binocular examination of young Taiwanese adults as a predictor of visual behavior performance
url	https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-022-02731-1
remote_bool	true
author2	Su, Kuo-Chen Wang, Po-Hsin Zhong, Xiang-Yin Cheng, Ching-Ying
author2Str	Su, Kuo-Chen Wang, Po-Hsin Zhong, Xiang-Yin Cheng, Ching-Ying
ppnlink	331018772
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1186/s12886-022-02731-1
up_date	2024-07-03T21:38:07.477Z
_version_	1803595481064931328
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR051408503</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230510061856.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230508s2023 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12886-022-02731-1</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR051408503</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12886-022-02731-1-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Chen, Shyan-Tarng</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Routine binocular examination of young Taiwanese adults as a predictor of visual behavior performance</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Morgan and Scheiman’s Optometric Extension Program (OEP) expected binocular vision findings have longstanding use in optometry. With technological advances, the demands and standards of binocular function have changed. This study aimed to investigate which binocular visual functions can effectively predict visual behavior performance. Methods Participants aged 15–24 years were recruited from two colleges and two universities. After completing the CSMU-Visual Behavioral Performance questionnaire (CSMU-VBP, with four components: near work, visual perception, visual comfort, and whole-body balance), participants were divided into symptomatic and asymptomatic groups based on questionnaire findings (cutoff: < 12 vs. ≥ 12 symptoms). Then a 24-step binocular visual examination was undertaken. Data were analyzed with one-sample, Student’s, and paired t-tests. Additionally, receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to determine the predictors of binocular visual function required for near work, visual perception, visual comfort, and body balance dimensions. Results Among 308 participants, 43 (14%) and 265 (86%) were symptomatic and asymptomatic, respectively. Among the 46 participants with abnormal binocular vision, 36 (78%) reported that they had no obvious symptoms. The commonest dysfunctions were accommodative excess and convergence excess. Most of the binocular visual findings significantly diverged from traditional normal values: amplitude of accommodation, as well as base-in prism to break and recovery points at distance were higher than traditional normal values, whereas others were lower than traditional normal values. Total CSMU-VBP scores indicated that the asymptomatic and symptomatic groups had significant differences in DBO recovery (t = 2.334, p = 0.020) and BAF (t = 1.984, p = 0.048). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis yielded the following binocular visual functional cutoff points: near work (DBO blur < 7, DBO recovery < 5.5), visual perception (MAF < 10.5, BAF < 10.25), visual comfort (DLP < − 2.25, DBI break > 11.5, NBI blur > 15, NBI break > 17.5, NBI recovery > 13, NPC < 5.75), and body balance (NFD_H > − 0.5, gradient AC/A [minus] > 2.25, NPC < 4.75). Conclusions The mean values of binocular visual function among young Taiwanese adults were statistically different from traditional normative values. Further research is required to confirm whether these findings reflect impaired binocular vision or stringent criteria. Assessments of binocular visual function, especially binocular accommodation sensitivity, are crucial in routine optometric examination.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Binocular visual function</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Binocular accommodative examination</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Visual behavior performance</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Su, Kuo-Chen</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wang, Po-Hsin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zhong, Xiang-Yin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Cheng, Ching-Ying</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC ophthalmology</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2001</subfield><subfield code="g">23(2023), 1 vom: 01. Feb.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)331018772</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2050436-6</subfield><subfield code="x">1471-2415</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:23</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2023</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:01</subfield><subfield code="g">month:02</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-022-02731-1</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">23</subfield><subfield code="j">2023</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">01</subfield><subfield code="c">02</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.4026165

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Routine binocular examination of young Taiwanese adults as a predictor of visual behavior performance

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?