Cantó-Cerdán Mario, Hernández-Rodríguez Carlos Javier, Martínez-Abad Antonio
Department of Optometry, Vissum (Miranza Group), Alicante, Spain; Grupo de Investigación en Optometría (GIOptom), University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain.
Department of Optometry, OKYO Ophthalmics, Alicante, Spain; Department of Ophthalmology, Quirónsalud Medical Center, Elche, Spain.
J Optom. 2025 Jul-Sep;18(3):100570. doi: 10.1016/j.optom.2025.100570. Epub 2025 Jul 10.
To evaluate the current evidence on oculomotor measurement parameters and their normative values through a systematic review.
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.
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).
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.
通过系统评价，评估目前关于眼球运动测量参数及其正常值的证据。
使用自由语言搜索式对原始研究进行检索。纳入分析任何年龄健康人群正常眼球运动功能参数的原创文章、包含明确区分的健康对照组的研究以及使用任何眼球运动测量测试的文章。采用QUADAS - 2工具评估研究的偏倚风险、适用性和质量。作者独立进行评价，然后汇总以确定最终纳入的研究。
共识别出915篇文章，在对标题和摘要进行首次评价后排除750篇。在第二步中，165项研究中有133项被剔除。最终，纳入了初始检索的32篇文章，以及通过手工检索确定的另外10篇文章。研究结果显示，眼球运动技能的测量方式存在差异，但在刺激、测量距离和评估参数方面存在差异。观察到存在较高的偏倚风险（在“流程和时间”、“参考标准”和“患者选择”方面≥50%），适用性也较差（在所有方面≥50%）。
目前尚无关于眼球运动技能正常值的明确证据，在测量方法、使用的刺激或工作距离方面也未达成共识。此外，对于应评估眼球运动技能的哪些方面也没有一致意见。为提高可靠性和适用性，应规范测量标准并建立正常值。
