Comparison of Four Methods for Measuring Heterophoria and Accommodative Convergence over Accommodation Ratio.

Q2 Medicine
Noelia Nores-Palmas, Veronica Noya-Padin, Eva Yebra-Pimentel, Maria Jesus Giraldez, Hugo Pena-Verdeal
{"title":"Comparison of Four Methods for Measuring Heterophoria and Accommodative Convergence over Accommodation Ratio.","authors":"Noelia Nores-Palmas, Veronica Noya-Padin, Eva Yebra-Pimentel, Maria Jesus Giraldez, Hugo Pena-Verdeal","doi":"10.3390/vision8040062","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The study aimed to assess the agreement between OptoTab SERIES, alternating Cover Test, Modified Thorington test, and Von Graefe method in measuring heterophoria and accommodative convergence over accommodation (AC/A) ratio. In an initial step, heterophoria was assessed at both distance and near in a cohort of 76 healthy young volunteers using the previously described tests. Subsequently, to determine the AC/A ratio, near-vision measurements were repeated with +1.00 D and -1.00 D lenses. All tests were performed in a randomized order across participants under consistent conditions. Significant differences were found between the Modified Thorington test and all other tests at distance (Wilcoxon test, all <i>p</i> ≤ 0.001) and between Von Graefe and all other tests at near (Wilcoxon test, all <i>p</i> ≤ 0.005). Regarding the AC/A ratio, significant differences were observed between all methods in +1.00 D AC/A ratio, except for the Modified Thorington test vs. the alternating Cover Test (Wilcoxon test, <i>p</i> = 0.024). In the -1.00 D AC/A ratio, differences were observed between OptoTab POCKET and all the other tests (Wilcoxon test, all <i>p</i> ≤ 0.001). The results indicate that all methods are interchangeable except the Modified Thorington test at distance and Von Graefe at near. For the AC/A ratio, only the Modified Thorington test is interchangeable with the alternating Cover Test using +1.00 D lenses and all are interchangeable using -1.00 D lenses except OptoTab POCKET.</p>","PeriodicalId":36586,"journal":{"name":"Vision (Switzerland)","volume":"8 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11503332/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vision (Switzerland)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/vision8040062","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The study aimed to assess the agreement between OptoTab SERIES, alternating Cover Test, Modified Thorington test, and Von Graefe method in measuring heterophoria and accommodative convergence over accommodation (AC/A) ratio. In an initial step, heterophoria was assessed at both distance and near in a cohort of 76 healthy young volunteers using the previously described tests. Subsequently, to determine the AC/A ratio, near-vision measurements were repeated with +1.00 D and -1.00 D lenses. All tests were performed in a randomized order across participants under consistent conditions. Significant differences were found between the Modified Thorington test and all other tests at distance (Wilcoxon test, all p ≤ 0.001) and between Von Graefe and all other tests at near (Wilcoxon test, all p ≤ 0.005). Regarding the AC/A ratio, significant differences were observed between all methods in +1.00 D AC/A ratio, except for the Modified Thorington test vs. the alternating Cover Test (Wilcoxon test, p = 0.024). In the -1.00 D AC/A ratio, differences were observed between OptoTab POCKET and all the other tests (Wilcoxon test, all p ≤ 0.001). The results indicate that all methods are interchangeable except the Modified Thorington test at distance and Von Graefe at near. For the AC/A ratio, only the Modified Thorington test is interchangeable with the alternating Cover Test using +1.00 D lenses and all are interchangeable using -1.00 D lenses except OptoTab POCKET.

比较四种测量异视和适应性辐辏与适应性比率的方法
该研究旨在评估 OptoTab SERIES、交替遮盖试验、改良索林顿试验和 Von Graefe 方法在测量异视和容纳辐辏比(AC/A)方面的一致性。首先,在 76 名健康的年轻志愿者中,使用之前描述的测试方法对异视进行了远近评估。随后,为了确定AC/A比率,使用+1.00 D和-1.00 D镜片重复进行了近视测量。所有测试都是在一致的条件下以随机顺序对参与者进行的。结果发现,改良索林顿测试与所有其他测试在远视力方面存在显著差异(Wilcoxon 检验,所有 p 均小于 0.001),而 Von Graefe 测试与所有其他测试在近视力方面存在显著差异(Wilcoxon 检验,所有 p 均小于 0.005)。关于 AC/A 比率,除了改良 Thorington 试验与交替覆盖试验(Wilcoxon 检验,p = 0.024)之外,所有方法在 +1.00 D AC/A 比率上都有显著差异。在-1.00 D AC/A 比率中,OptoTab POCKET 与所有其他测试方法都存在差异(Wilcoxon 检验,所有 p 均小于 0.001)。结果表明,除了远距离的 Modified Thorington 检验和近距离的 Von Graefe 检验外,所有方法都可以互换。在 AC/A 比率方面,只有使用 +1.00 D 镜片的改良索林顿测试与交替遮盖测试可以互换,而使用 -1.00 D 镜片的所有测试方法都可以互换,OptoTab POCKET 除外。
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
Vision (Switzerland)
Vision (Switzerland) Health Professions-Optometry
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
62
审稿时长
11 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