Ocular motor score a novel clinical approach to evaluating ocular motor function in children

8Citations
Citations of this article
24Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Purpose: Ocular motility disturbances are common in a number of neuropaediatric and neurometabolic disorders. Assessment of ocular motor function can be a source of information for diagnosis and follow-up of these patients. Aim: To evaluate a new clinical ocular motor function test: ocular motor score (OMS) and provide reference values in children and young adults without known ocular or neurological disorders. Material and Methods: A total of 233 children and young adults, 103 males and 130 females between the ages of 6 months and 19 years, were assessed according to a specific OMS protocol. They were divided into four different age groups: 0.5-3, 4-6, 7-10 and 11-19 years. The OMS protocol consists of 15 different subtests evaluating ocular motor function, and a total score of minimum 0 up to max 15 can be obtained: the minimum score, 0, is considered normal while 1 represents an abnormal function. Results: The median OMS in the whole reference group was 0.3 (range 0-4.8). The median OMS in the different age groups, starting with the youngest, was: 0.9 (range 0.3-4.8), 0.3 (range 0-3.4), 0.3 (range 0-2.3) and 0 (range 0-3.5), respectively. The youngest subjects, aged 0.5-3, showed a significantly higher total OMS compared with the other age groups (p < 0.001). Conclusion: This study provides reference values for the OMS test in a population aged 0.5-19 years. The test may be valuable as a screening tool for identification and follow-up of ocular motor dysfunction in children and young adults. © 2012 The Authors. Acta Ophthalmologica © 2012 Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica Foundation.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Olsson, M., Fahnehjelm, K. T., Rydberg, A., & Ygge, J. (2013). Ocular motor score a novel clinical approach to evaluating ocular motor function in children. Acta Ophthalmologica, 91(6), 564–570. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-3768.2012.02468.x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free