Author(s): Scheiman M, Gwiazda J, Li T, Scheiman M, Gwiazda J, Li T
Abstract Share this page
Abstract BACKGROUND: Convergence insufficiency is a common eye muscle co-ordination problem in which the eyes have a strong tendency to drift outward (exophoria) when reading or doing close work. Symptoms may include eye strain, headaches, double vision, print moving on the page, frequent loss of place when reading, inability to concentrate, and short attention span. OBJECTIVES: To systematically assess and synthesize evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of non-surgical interventions for convergence insufficiency. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com) and ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov ) on 7 October 2010. We manually searched reference lists and optometric journals. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs examining any form of non-surgical intervention against placebo, no treatment, sham treatment, or each other. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed eligibility, risk of bias, and extracted data. We performed meta-analyses when appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: We included six trials (three in children, three in adults) with a total of 475 participants. We graded four trials at low risk of bias.Evidence from one trial (graded at low risk of bias) suggests that base-in prism reading glasses was no more effective than placebo reading glasses in improving clinical signs or symptoms in children.Evidence from one trial (graded at high risk of bias) suggests that base-in prism glasses using a progressive addition lens design was more effective than progressive addition lens alone in decreasing symptoms in adults. At three weeks of therapy, the mean difference in Convergence Insufficiency Symptoms Survey (CISS) score was -10.24 points (95\% confidence interval (CI) -15.45 to -5.03).Evidence from two trials (graded at low risk of bias) suggests that outpatient (or office-based as used in the US) vision therapy/orthoptics was more effective than home-based convergence exercises (or pencil push-ups as used in the US) in children. At 12 weeks of therapy, the mean difference in change in near point of convergence, positive fusional vergence, and CISS score from baseline was 3.99 cm (95\% CI 2.11 to 5.86), 13.13 diopters (95\% CI 9.91 to 16.35), and 9.86 points (95\% CI 6.70 to 13.02), respectively.In a young adult population, evidence from one trial (graded at low risk of bias) suggests outpatient vision therapy/orthoptics was more effective than home-based convergence exercises in improving positive fusional vergence at near (7.7 diopters, 95\% CI 0.82 to 14.58), but not the other outcomes.Evidence from one trial (graded at low risk of bias) comparing four interventions, also suggests that outpatient vision therapy/orthoptics was more effective than home-based computer vision therapy/orthoptics in children. At 12 weeks, the mean difference in change in near point of convergence, positive fusional vergence, and CISS score from baseline was 2.90 cm (95\% CI 0.96 to 4.84), 7.70 diopters (95\% CI 3.94 to 11.46), and 8.80 points (95\% CI 5.26 to 12.34), respectively. Evidence was less consistent for other pair-wise comparisons. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current research suggests that outpatient vision therapy/orthoptics is more effective than home-based convergence exercises or home-based computer vision therapy/orthoptics for children. In adult population, evidence of the effectiveness of various non-surgical interventions is less consistent.
This article was published in Cochrane Database Syst Rev
and referenced in Optometry: Open Access