Condition: Binocular Visual Function · Sponsor: Tan Tock Seng Hospital
The assessment and monitoring of the field of binocular single vision remains a crucial aspect of ophthalmological care, yet current clinical practice relies on normative standards established by Feibel \& Roper-Hall in 1974 that present significant limitations for contemporary application. The original study, conducted with a demographically homogeneous Caucasian population in St Louis using only "several" normal individuals, raises concerns regarding its applicability to Asian populations, particularly in Singapore, where ethnic and genetic factors may influence ocular characteristics. The limited sample size significantly increases the likelihood of Type II errors, whilst the temporal gap of over five decades introduces additional concerns regarding population changes, environmental factors, and advances in measurement techniques that have not been incorporated into current normative data. Given these substantial limitations in demographic representation, statistical power, and temporal relevance, there exists a pressing need to establish population-specific normative data for the field of binocular single vision in Singapore's adult population, which would provide more clinically relevant reference values and potentially improve diagnostic accuracy for ocular conditions in the local context.
This description comes directly from the study's public registry record.
Zheng Kuang Noel Soh, BSc · +65 6357 3693 · zheng.kuang.soh@nhghealth.com.sg
Always discuss trial participation with your own doctor first.
| Tan Tock Seng Hospital | Singapore, Singapore, Singapore | Recruiting |
Get one email when the public record changes — results posted, or the study's status changes. Nothing else, ever.
We email about this public record only. Unsubscribe anytime with one click. Never medical advice.
This page is independently generated by Eichor from the public ClinicalTrials.gov record and re-synced daily. It is not the sponsor's official website unless claimed. Nothing here is medical advice; eligibility is always determined by the study team — talk to your own doctor first.
Source record: clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT07257341