Hassan Hashemi, Payam Nabovati, Mehdi Khabazkhoob, Abbasali Yekta, Mohammad Hassan Emamian, Akbar Fotouhi
{"title":"比较使用和不使用专用适应规则测量的儿童适应振幅。","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
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。
Comparison of the accommodative amplitude measured with and without the use of a specialised accommodative rule in children.
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.