↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for dissociated vertical deviation

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Interventions for dissociated vertical deviation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010868.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah R Hatt, Xue Wang, Jonathan M Holmes

Abstract

The term "strabismus" describes misalignment of the eyes. One or both eyes may deviate inward, outward, upward, or downward. Dissociated vertical deviation (DVD) is a well-recognized type of upward drifting of one or both eyes, which can occur in children or adults. DVD often develops in the context of infantile- or childhood-onset horizontal strabismus, either esotropia (inward-turning) or exotropia (outward-turning). For some individuals, DVD remains controlled and can only be detected during clinical testing. For others, DVD becomes spontaneously "manifest" and the eye drifts up of its own accord. Spontaneously manifest DVD can be difficult to control and often causes psychosocial concerns. Traditionally, DVD has been thought to be asymptomatic, although some individuals have double vision. More recently it has been suggested that individuals with DVD may also suffer from eyestrain. Treatment for DVD may be sought either due to psychosocial concerns or because of these symptoms. The standard treatment for DVD is a surgical procedure; non-surgical treatments are offered less commonly. Although there are many studies evaluating different management options for the correction of DVD, a lack of clarity remains regarding which treatments are most effective. The objective of this review was to determine the effectiveness and safety of various surgical and non-surgical interventions in randomized controlled trials of participants with DVD. We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2015, Issue 8), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to August 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to August 2015), PubMed (1948 to August 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (1982 to August 2015), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com) (last searched 3 February 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 3 August 2015. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of surgical and non-surgical interventions for the correction of DVD. We used standard procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently completed eligibility screening, data abstraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and grading of the evidence. We found four RCTs eligible for inclusion in this review (248 eyes of 151 participants between the ages of 6 months to 22 years). All trials were assessed as having unclear risk of bias overall due to insufficient reporting of study methods. One trial was conducted in Canada and compared anteriorization of the inferior oblique muscle with resection versus anteriorization of the inferior oblique muscle alone; one in the USA compared superior rectus recession with posterior fixation suture versus superior rectus recession alone; and two in the Czech Republic compared anteriorization of the inferior oblique muscle versus myectomy of the inferior oblique muscle.Only one trial reported data that allowed analysis of the primary outcome for this review, the proportion of participants with treatment success. The difference between inferior oblique anteriorization plus resection versus inferior oblique anteriorization alone was uncertain when measured at least four months postoperatively (risk ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.60 to 2.11, 30 participants, very low-quality evidence). Three trials measured the magnitude of hyperdeviation, but did not provide sufficient data for analysis. All four trials reported a relatively low rate of adverse events; hypotropia, limited elevation, and need for repeat surgery were reported as adverse events associated with some of the surgical interventions. No trials reported any other secondary outcome specified for our review. The four trials included in this review assessed the effectiveness of five different surgical procedures for the treatment of DVD. Nevertheless, insufficient reporting of study methods and data led to methodological concerns that undermine the conclusions of all studies. There is a pressing need for carefully executed RCTs of treatment for DVD in order to improve the evidence for the optimal management of this condition.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 8 22%
Student > Master 7 19%
Other 5 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Researcher 3 8%
Other 9 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 25%
Unspecified 9 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 14%
Social Sciences 5 14%
Psychology 5 14%
Other 3 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 February 2016.
All research outputs
#3,323,545
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,931
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,978
of 344,573 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#161
of 213 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,573 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 213 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.