 |
|
The Treatment of Convergence Insufficiency
Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123:100-101.
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
Scheiman et al1 are to be congratulated for using good science and methodology to study the treatment of convergence insufficiency (CI). Although CI is quite common, with reported rates of prevalence ranging between 2.25% and 8.3%,1 there is a paucity of good studies that compare popular treatment modalities. As such, the pilot study by Scheiman and colleagues does move forward our understanding of the treatment of this disorder. They compared a rather intensive (and relatively expensive) office-based treatment program with both a very minimally intensive program of home exercises and a placebo treatment. Although the number of subjects was small in this pilot study (between 11 and 15 in each of the 3 treatment arms), the authors found that their intensive office-based program worked quite well. Both the home-based treatment and the placebo, however, did not.
Like all scientific studies, this one can only answer the specific questions it asks. . . . [Full Text of this Article]
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Burton J. Kushner, MD
RELATED ARTICLE
A Randomized Clinical Trial of Treatments for Convergence Insufficiency in Children
Mitchell Scheiman, G. Lynn Mitchell, Susan Cotter, Jeffrey Cooper, Marjean Kulp, Michael Rouse, Eric Borsting, Richard London, Janice Wensveen, and for the Convergence Insufficiency Treatment Trial Study Group
Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123(1):14-24.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Pediatric Strabismus
Donahue
NEJM 2007;356:1040-1047.
FULL TEXT
Convergence Insufficiency: Randomized Clinical Trial--Reply
Scheiman et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2005;123:1760-1761.
FULL TEXT
|
