Exact(4)
A CISS score of ≥21 was used to define 'significant' symptoms, and convergence insufficiency (CI) was defined as convergence ≥8 cm from the nose with a fusion range <15Δ base-out with small or no exophoria.
Similar findings had been documented in a CISS patient with compound heterozygocity of two CRLF1 mutations.
Borsting et al. reported that the CISS score was 30.8 in children with convergence insufficiency; children with a CISS score of 16 or higher are considered to be symptomatic [ 22].
Median CISS score reduced as expected to 7 (range 0 33, IQR 3 14), but 15 (8.9%) participants still had a CISS score ≥21 (now from 10 instead of 15 items), of which only 2 (13.3% of these) had genuine CI; so, 13 (7.7% of all participants) without any other clinical signs of CI still returned a high CISS score.
Similar(56)
Bilateral pericochlear ring-like enhancement (arrow) is suggestive of bilateral cochlear otosclerosis, which was further proven by HRCT Open image in new window Fig. 14 a Axial CISS MR image of the skull base in an adult patient with left-sided SNHL.
Although 31% of our sample had either a high CISS score or clinical CI, none of them thought they had a problem with their eyes, and all those offered treatment declined it.
A more serious attitude towards the exercises was also significantly associated with a lower CISS score (univariate β = -2.47, p = 0.002), even after adjusting for student's age, gender, refractive error, average parental refractive error, and time spend on near work and outdoor activity (multiple β = -1.65, p = 0.039).
It suggests that a total CISS score above 50 indicates abnormality [ 21].
41 (25%) participants returned a 'high' CISS score of ≥21 but only 6 (15%) of these had genuine CI.
Thus, 52 participants (31.1%) had either a high CISS score or showed clinical signs of CI (see table 1).
Overall, 17 subjects (10.2%) showed clinical signs of CI according to the definition above and 41 subjects (24.5%) had a high CISS score.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com