Comparison of the accommodative amplitude measured with and without the use of a specialised accommodative rule in children.

IF 2 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Hassan Hashemi, Payam Nabovati, Mehdi Khabazkhoob, Abbasali Yekta, Mohammad Hassan Emamian, Akbar Fotouhi
{"title":"Comparison of the accommodative amplitude measured with and without the use of a specialised accommodative rule in children.","authors":"Hassan Hashemi, Payam Nabovati, Mehdi Khabazkhoob, Abbasali Yekta, Mohammad Hassan Emamian, Akbar Fotouhi","doi":"10.1136/bmjophth-2024-001829","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine the agreement between measurements of accommodative amplitude (AoA) in children using a specialised accommodative rule and measurments without it.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 502 children underwent optometric examinations, including the measurement of visual acuity, objective and subjective refraction. AoA measurements were done with and without the Berens accommodative rule. The measurements of AoA were conducted monocularly using a -4 D lens. A fixation stick containing English letters equivalent to 20/30 visual acuity and a long millimetre ruler was used to measure AoA without the accommodative rule. This measurement was performed by the two trained examiners. The agreement between these methods was reported by 95% limits of agreement (LoA) and interclass correlation coefficient (ICC).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean age of the participants was 11.7±1.3 years (range: 9-15 years) and 52.4% were male. The mean AoA with and without the accommodative rule was 20.02±6.02 D and 22.46±6.32 D, respectively. The 95% LoA between the two methods was -12.5 to 7.5 D, and the ICC was 0.67 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.70). The 95% LoA was narrower in higher age groups and males compared with females (18.92 vs 20.87). The 95% LoA was narrower in hyperopes (16.83 D) compared with emmetropes (18.37 D) and myopes (18.27 D). The agreement was not constant and decreased in higher values of AoA.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is a poor and non-constant agreement between the measurements of the AoA with and without the accommodative rule. The mean AoA was 2.5 D lower with using the accommodative rule.</p>","PeriodicalId":9286,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Ophthalmology","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjophth-2024-001829","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To determine the agreement between measurements of accommodative amplitude (AoA) in children using a specialised accommodative rule and measurments without it.

Methods: A total of 502 children underwent optometric examinations, including the measurement of visual acuity, objective and subjective refraction. AoA measurements were done with and without the Berens accommodative rule. The measurements of AoA were conducted monocularly using a -4 D lens. A fixation stick containing English letters equivalent to 20/30 visual acuity and a long millimetre ruler was used to measure AoA without the accommodative rule. This measurement was performed by the two trained examiners. The agreement between these methods was reported by 95% limits of agreement (LoA) and interclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

Results: The mean age of the participants was 11.7±1.3 years (range: 9-15 years) and 52.4% were male. The mean AoA with and without the accommodative rule was 20.02±6.02 D and 22.46±6.32 D, respectively. The 95% LoA between the two methods was -12.5 to 7.5 D, and the ICC was 0.67 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.70). The 95% LoA was narrower in higher age groups and males compared with females (18.92 vs 20.87). The 95% LoA was narrower in hyperopes (16.83 D) compared with emmetropes (18.37 D) and myopes (18.27 D). The agreement was not constant and decreased in higher values of AoA.

Conclusion: There is a poor and non-constant agreement between the measurements of the AoA with and without the accommodative rule. The mean AoA was 2.5 D lower with using the accommodative rule.

比较使用和不使用专用适应规则测量的儿童适应振幅。
目的确定使用专门的适应规则测量儿童的适应振幅(AoA)与不使用该规则测量之间的一致性:共有 502 名儿童接受了视力检查,包括视力、客观和主观屈光度的测量。在使用和不使用贝伦斯通融规则的情况下进行了视力测量。用-4 D镜片进行单眼视力测量。在不使用贝伦斯屈光规则的情况下,使用一个包含相当于 20/30 视力的英文字母的固定棒和一把长毫米尺来测量屈光度。该测量由两名训练有素的检查员进行。这些方法之间的一致性通过 95% 的一致性极限 (LoA) 和类间相关系数 (ICC) 进行报告:参与者的平均年龄为(11.7±1.3)岁(9-15 岁),52.4% 为男性。使用和不使用容纳规则的平均视差分别为 20.02±6.02 D 和 22.46±6.32 D。两种方法的 95% LoA 为 -12.5 到 7.5 D,ICC 为 0.67(95% CI 0.63 到 0.70)。与女性相比(18.92 vs 20.87),高年龄组和男性的 95% LoA 更窄。与散光(18.37 D)和近视(18.27 D)相比,远视眼(16.83 D)的 95% LoA 更窄。结论:结论:使用和不使用适应规则测量的视轴角膜屈光度之间的一致性很差,而且不稳定。使用适应规则时,平均视角降低了 2.5 D。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Open Ophthalmology
BMJ Open Ophthalmology OPHTHALMOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
4.20%
发文量
104
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信