关于动眼力技能参数和规范值的证据:系统回顾

IF 1.8 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Mario Cantó-Cerdán , Carlos Javier Hernández-Rodríguez , Antonio Martínez-Abad
{"title":"关于动眼力技能参数和规范值的证据:系统回顾","authors":"Mario Cantó-Cerdán ,&nbsp;Carlos Javier Hernández-Rodríguez ,&nbsp;Antonio Martínez-Abad","doi":"10.1016/j.optom.2025.100570","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To evaluate the current evidence on oculomotor measurement parameters and their normative values through a systematic review.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A search of primary studies was conducted using a search equation with free language. Original articles analyzing normal oculomotor function parameters in healthy populations of any age, studies that included a clearly differentiated healthy control group, and articles using any oculomotor measurement test were included. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias, applicability, and quality of the studies. The review was conducted independently by the authors and then pooled to determine the final inclusion.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 915 articles were identified, of which 750 were excluded after the first review of the title and abstract. In the second step, 133 out of 165 investigations were discarded. Ultimately, 32 articles from the initial search were included, along with 10 additional articles identified through a manual search. The findings revealed variations in how oculomotor skills are measured, including differences in stimuli, measurement distances, and parameters assessed. A high risk of bias was observed (≥50 % in the areas of “flow and timing”, “reference standard” and “patient selection”) along with poor applicability (≥50 % in all aspects).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>There is no clear evidence on normative values for oculomotor skills, nor is there a consensus on the measurement methods, stimulus used, or working distance. Furthermore, there is no agreement on which aspects of oculomotor skills should be assessed. To enhance reliability and applicability, measurement criteria should be standardized, and normative values should be established.<!--> </div></div>","PeriodicalId":46407,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Optometry","volume":"18 3","pages":"Article 100570"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evidence on the parameters of oculomotor skills and normative values: A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Mario Cantó-Cerdán ,&nbsp;Carlos Javier Hernández-Rodríguez ,&nbsp;Antonio Martínez-Abad\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.optom.2025.100570\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To evaluate the current evidence on oculomotor measurement parameters and their normative values through a systematic review.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A search of primary studies was conducted using a search equation with free language. Original articles analyzing normal oculomotor function parameters in healthy populations of any age, studies that included a clearly differentiated healthy control group, and articles using any oculomotor measurement test were included. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias, applicability, and quality of the studies. The review was conducted independently by the authors and then pooled to determine the final inclusion.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 915 articles were identified, of which 750 were excluded after the first review of the title and abstract. In the second step, 133 out of 165 investigations were discarded. Ultimately, 32 articles from the initial search were included, along with 10 additional articles identified through a manual search. The findings revealed variations in how oculomotor skills are measured, including differences in stimuli, measurement distances, and parameters assessed. A high risk of bias was observed (≥50 % in the areas of “flow and timing”, “reference standard” and “patient selection”) along with poor applicability (≥50 % in all aspects).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>There is no clear evidence on normative values for oculomotor skills, nor is there a consensus on the measurement methods, stimulus used, or working distance. Furthermore, there is no agreement on which aspects of oculomotor skills should be assessed. To enhance reliability and applicability, measurement criteria should be standardized, and normative values should be established.<!--> </div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46407,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Optometry\",\"volume\":\"18 3\",\"pages\":\"Article 100570\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Optometry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1888429625000354\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Optometry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1888429625000354","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的通过系统综述,评价目前有关动眼肌测量参数及其规范性值的证据。方法利用自由语言检索方程对初步研究进行检索。分析任何年龄健康人群正常动眼肌功能参数的原创文章,包括明确区分的健康对照组的研究,以及使用任何动眼肌测量测试的文章。使用QUADAS-2工具评估研究的偏倚风险、适用性和质量。该综述由作者独立进行,然后汇总以确定最终的纳入。结果共筛选到915篇文献,其中750篇经标题和摘要一审后被排除。在第二步中,165个调查中有133个被放弃。最终,从最初的搜索中包含了32篇文章,以及通过手动搜索确定的另外10篇文章。研究结果揭示了动眼肌技能测量方法的差异,包括刺激、测量距离和评估参数的差异。观察到高偏倚风险(在“流量和时机”、“参考标准”和“患者选择”领域≥50%)以及较差的适用性(在所有方面≥50%)。结论没有明确的证据表明动眼肌技能的规范性值,在测量方法、使用的刺激或工作距离上也没有共识。此外,对于动眼力技能的哪些方面应该进行评估,目前还没有达成一致意见。为提高可靠性和适用性,应规范计量标准,建立标准值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evidence on the parameters of oculomotor skills and normative values: A systematic review

Purpose

To evaluate the current evidence on oculomotor measurement parameters and their normative values through a systematic review.

Methods

A search of primary studies was conducted using a search equation with free language. Original articles analyzing normal oculomotor function parameters in healthy populations of any age, studies that included a clearly differentiated healthy control group, and articles using any oculomotor measurement test were included. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias, applicability, and quality of the studies. The review was conducted independently by the authors and then pooled to determine the final inclusion.

Results

A total of 915 articles were identified, of which 750 were excluded after the first review of the title and abstract. In the second step, 133 out of 165 investigations were discarded. Ultimately, 32 articles from the initial search were included, along with 10 additional articles identified through a manual search. The findings revealed variations in how oculomotor skills are measured, including differences in stimuli, measurement distances, and parameters assessed. A high risk of bias was observed (≥50 % in the areas of “flow and timing”, “reference standard” and “patient selection”) along with poor applicability (≥50 % in all aspects).

Conclusions

There is no clear evidence on normative values for oculomotor skills, nor is there a consensus on the measurement methods, stimulus used, or working distance. Furthermore, there is no agreement on which aspects of oculomotor skills should be assessed. To enhance reliability and applicability, measurement criteria should be standardized, and normative values should be established. 
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Optometry
Journal of Optometry OPHTHALMOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
60
审稿时长
66 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信