Prism Prescription in Strabismic and Non-Strabismic Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review investigates the clinical effectiveness, prescription techniques, outcomes, and complications associated with prism therapy in both strabismic and non-strabismic binocular vision disorders. Prism lenses remain a key non-invasive intervention for managing ocular misalignment and vergence anomalies, but clinical variability in application and outcomes necessitates a comprehensive synthesis of current evidence. A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Google Scholar for studies published between January 1990 and June 2025. Inclusion criteria encompassed randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and case series evaluating prism use in strabismic or non-strabismic patients. A total of 498 records were identified, with 38 studies meeting all inclusion criteria. Data extraction and quality assessment were conducted using standardized forms, and risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Prism therapy in strabismic cases demonstrated effectiveness in alleviating diplopia, improving fusion, and providing cosmetic alignment in patients with small, comitant deviations. Fresnel and ground-in prisms were commonly employed. In non-strabismic cases, particularly convergence insufficiency and vertical phoria, prisms effectively reduced symptoms such as eye strain, blurred vision, and difficulty with near work. However, outcomes varied with dosage, adaptation, and patient compliance. Complications such as prism adaptation, diplopia persistence, and suppression were noted across both populations. Prism therapy is effective in selected strabismic and non-strabismic cases when guided by appropriate clinical evaluation and patient selection. The evidence supports conservative, individualized prescription practices with close monitoring. Further highquality trials are needed to establish standardized protocols and long-term outcome data for prism use in diverse patient populations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".