Skip to content

Comparison of Three Vision Therapy Approaches for Convergence Insufficiency

Comparison of Three Vision Therapy Approaches for Convergence Insufficiency

Status
UNKNOWN
Phases
Phase 2
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03431454
Enrollment
48
Registered
2018-02-13
Start date
2018-02-28
Completion date
2018-12-31
Last updated
2018-02-13

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Comparison of Three Vision Therapy Approaches for Convergence Insufficiency

Brief summary

We compared the effectiveness of three active vision therapy approaches for convergence insufficiency (CI). Patients with eligible criteria and symptomatic CI were included in a prospective study and randomly allocated into three groups. In the home-based vision orthoptic therapy (HBVOT) group, patients were trained to do the pencil push-ups procedure 15 minutes per day, five days a week. In the office-based vision orthoptic therapy (OBVOT) group, 60 minutes of orthoptic therapy using a major amblyoscope twice weekly with additional home orthoptic therapy was prescribed. For the augmented office-based vision orthoptic therapy (AOBVOT) group, orthoptic exercises using three diopter over-minus lenses and a base out prism, in addition to major amblyoscope and additional home reinforcement was prescribed in the same period of time.

Interventions

PROCEDUREtrained to do the pencil push-ups procedure

15 minutes per day, five days a week

PROCEDUREusing a major amblyoscope twice weekly with additional home orthoptic therapy

60 minutes of orthoptic therapy using a major amblyoscope twice weekly with additional home orthoptic therapy was prescribed.

PROCEDUREusing three diopter over-minus lenses and a base out prism

For the augmented office-based vision orthoptic therapy (AOBVOT) group, orthoptic exercises using three diopter over-minus lenses and a base out prism, in addition to major amblyoscope and additional home reinforcement was prescribed in the same period of time.

Sponsors

Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Caregiver)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
15 Years to 35 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* patients between 15 and 35 years of age who have symptomatic CI using the Convergence Insufficiency Symptom Survey (CISS) scoring system. * best-corrected visual acuity ≥ 20/25 * exophoria at near at least 4 prism diopters (△) greater than at distance * near point of convergence more than 6.0 cm break * insufficient positive fusional vergence (PFV) (failing Sheard's criterion or PFV ≤ 15 △ base-out) at near distance.

Exclusion criteria

* amblyopia (VA worse than 20/30 in each eye), presence of manifest strabismus, history of ocular surgery, any systemic disorder, anisometropia of more than 1.5 diopter of myopia or hyperopia or significant refractive error, and nystagmus and usage of medications that may impair accommodation or convergence. ,ocular surface abnormalities or history of ocular allergy or those who had previously been treated for CI

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
symptomatic convergence insufficiencyone monthA symptomatic score was an average score of 16 or higher on the CISS(conv-insuff-sympt-scove)

Countries

Iran

Contacts

Primary ContactMaryam Aletaha, MD
labbafi@hotmail.com9822591616

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026