适应性和远视异常的诊断方案 - 综述。

Q3 Medicine
Mousumi Saikia, Kamal Pant, Joydeep Dutta
{"title":"适应性和远视异常的诊断方案 - 综述。","authors":"Mousumi Saikia, Kamal Pant, Joydeep Dutta","doi":"10.1080/2576117X.2024.2347663","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To review the diagnostic protocols of non-strabismic binocular vision anomalies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We carried out a literature search on published articles of non-strabismic accommodative and vergence anomalies in different international optometry and ophthalmology journals found in the Pubmed, ResearchGate, Google Scholar, and MEDLINE databases.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The diagnostic criteria and normative data from the nine articles selected show discrepancies and variability in methodologies and techniques in the overall assessment of Non-Strabismic Binocular Vision Anomalies (NSBVA). Near point of convergence measurement is the most common assessment, whereas the vergence facility is the least commonly used assessment in terms of evaluating convergence insufficiency. Near point of convergence > 10 cm alone is the most sensitive sign to detect convergence insufficiency in a community set-up but high positive relative accommodation (>3.50D) is the most sensitive sign to diagnose accommodative excess. On the other hand, monocular accommodative facility < 7 CPM has the highest sensitivity to confirm the diagnosis of accommodative infacility. This review also indicates that the more clinical signs that are included in a set of diagnostic criteria, the lower the prevalence rate for that diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is no standardized and diagnostically validated protocol for the assessment of NSBVAs. Variable cutoff values obtained using different methods and the selection of diagnostic criteria by various researchers have led to discrepancies that highlight the need for diagnostic validity of available protocols (combination of tests) for each anomaly. Clinical signs such as positive relative accommodation (PRA) for accommodative excess, near point of convergence (NPC) for convergence insufficiency and monocular accommodative facility (MAF) for accommodative infacility were found to be useful diagnostic signs of these anomalies. Studies should be carried out for accommodative and vergence dysfunctions using proper designs and methods to validate diagnostic criteria for all age groups. Standardization of assessment protocol and cutoff criteria will also aid in calculating prevalence for non-strabismic binocular vision anomalies.</p>","PeriodicalId":37288,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Binocular Vision and Ocular Motility","volume":" ","pages":"48-64"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic Protocol for Accommodative and Vergence Anomalies - A Review.\",\"authors\":\"Mousumi Saikia, Kamal Pant, Joydeep Dutta\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/2576117X.2024.2347663\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To review the diagnostic protocols of non-strabismic binocular vision anomalies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We carried out a literature search on published articles of non-strabismic accommodative and vergence anomalies in different international optometry and ophthalmology journals found in the Pubmed, ResearchGate, Google Scholar, and MEDLINE databases.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The diagnostic criteria and normative data from the nine articles selected show discrepancies and variability in methodologies and techniques in the overall assessment of Non-Strabismic Binocular Vision Anomalies (NSBVA). Near point of convergence measurement is the most common assessment, whereas the vergence facility is the least commonly used assessment in terms of evaluating convergence insufficiency. Near point of convergence > 10 cm alone is the most sensitive sign to detect convergence insufficiency in a community set-up but high positive relative accommodation (>3.50D) is the most sensitive sign to diagnose accommodative excess. On the other hand, monocular accommodative facility < 7 CPM has the highest sensitivity to confirm the diagnosis of accommodative infacility. This review also indicates that the more clinical signs that are included in a set of diagnostic criteria, the lower the prevalence rate for that diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is no standardized and diagnostically validated protocol for the assessment of NSBVAs. Variable cutoff values obtained using different methods and the selection of diagnostic criteria by various researchers have led to discrepancies that highlight the need for diagnostic validity of available protocols (combination of tests) for each anomaly. Clinical signs such as positive relative accommodation (PRA) for accommodative excess, near point of convergence (NPC) for convergence insufficiency and monocular accommodative facility (MAF) for accommodative infacility were found to be useful diagnostic signs of these anomalies. Studies should be carried out for accommodative and vergence dysfunctions using proper designs and methods to validate diagnostic criteria for all age groups. Standardization of assessment protocol and cutoff criteria will also aid in calculating prevalence for non-strabismic binocular vision anomalies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37288,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Binocular Vision and Ocular Motility\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"48-64\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Binocular Vision and Ocular Motility\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/2576117X.2024.2347663\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Binocular Vision and Ocular Motility","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2576117X.2024.2347663","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:研究非斜视性双眼视力异常的诊断方法:我们对Pubmed、ResearchGate、Google Scholar和MEDLINE数据库中不同国际视光学和眼科学期刊上发表的有关非斜视性容纳和辐辏异常的文章进行了文献检索:结果:所选九篇文章的诊断标准和规范数据显示,在对非斜视性双眼视力异常(NSBVA)进行整体评估时,方法和技术存在差异和变异。辐辏近点测量是最常用的评估方法,而辐辏设施是评估辐辏不足最不常用的评估方法。辐辏近点 > 10 厘米是在社区环境中检测辐辏不足最敏感的体征,而高正向相对屈光度(>3.50D)则是诊断屈光过度最敏感的体征。另一方面,单眼适应能力的结论:目前还没有标准化的、经过诊断验证的方案来评估 NSBVA。不同的研究人员使用不同的方法和选择不同的诊断标准得出不同的临界值,这导致了差异,突出了对每种异常的现有方案(测试组合)的诊断有效性的需求。临床体征,如相对容纳阳性(PRA)表示容纳过度,近辐辏点(NPC)表示辐辏不足,单眼容纳能力(MAF)表示容纳不足,被认为是这些异常的有用诊断体征。应采用适当的设计和方法对所有年龄组的适应和辐辏功能障碍进行研究,以验证诊断标准。评估方案和临界标准的标准化也有助于计算非斜视性双眼视力异常的患病率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Diagnostic Protocol for Accommodative and Vergence Anomalies - A Review.

Purpose: To review the diagnostic protocols of non-strabismic binocular vision anomalies.

Methods: We carried out a literature search on published articles of non-strabismic accommodative and vergence anomalies in different international optometry and ophthalmology journals found in the Pubmed, ResearchGate, Google Scholar, and MEDLINE databases.

Results: The diagnostic criteria and normative data from the nine articles selected show discrepancies and variability in methodologies and techniques in the overall assessment of Non-Strabismic Binocular Vision Anomalies (NSBVA). Near point of convergence measurement is the most common assessment, whereas the vergence facility is the least commonly used assessment in terms of evaluating convergence insufficiency. Near point of convergence > 10 cm alone is the most sensitive sign to detect convergence insufficiency in a community set-up but high positive relative accommodation (>3.50D) is the most sensitive sign to diagnose accommodative excess. On the other hand, monocular accommodative facility < 7 CPM has the highest sensitivity to confirm the diagnosis of accommodative infacility. This review also indicates that the more clinical signs that are included in a set of diagnostic criteria, the lower the prevalence rate for that diagnosis.

Conclusions: There is no standardized and diagnostically validated protocol for the assessment of NSBVAs. Variable cutoff values obtained using different methods and the selection of diagnostic criteria by various researchers have led to discrepancies that highlight the need for diagnostic validity of available protocols (combination of tests) for each anomaly. Clinical signs such as positive relative accommodation (PRA) for accommodative excess, near point of convergence (NPC) for convergence insufficiency and monocular accommodative facility (MAF) for accommodative infacility were found to be useful diagnostic signs of these anomalies. Studies should be carried out for accommodative and vergence dysfunctions using proper designs and methods to validate diagnostic criteria for all age groups. Standardization of assessment protocol and cutoff criteria will also aid in calculating prevalence for non-strabismic binocular vision anomalies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
×
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