调节幅度的主观和客观测量:重新审视现有方法和新技术的临床评价。

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-04 DOI:10.1111/opo.13482
Raquel Salvador-Roger, José J Esteve-Taboada, Abinaya Priya Venkataraman, Alberto Domínguez-Vicent
{"title":"调节幅度的主观和客观测量:重新审视现有方法和新技术的临床评价。","authors":"Raquel Salvador-Roger, José J Esteve-Taboada, Abinaya Priya Venkataraman, Alberto Domínguez-Vicent","doi":"10.1111/opo.13482","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the repeatability and agreement of established and newer methods for measuring the amplitude of accommodation in non-presbyopic and early presbyopic individuals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The amplitude of accommodation of 81 participants was measured using five different methods (two push-up techniques, two minus lens techniques and one objective technique) with different measurement principles. Among these, two new techniques were introduced: an electronic push-up and a minus lens technique with a tunable lens. Three repeated measurements were performed with each method. The repeatability limit and non-parametric Bland-Altman analysis were used to describe the repeatability and agreement of each method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The repeatability limit was between ±0.7 D and ±1.4 D for the minus lens techniques, around ±1.8 D for the push-up methods and ±1.4 D for the objective procedure. The largest differences in median values were found between the push-up and objective methods.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Push-up methods are most likely to overestimate accommodation, while the objective method gives the lowest results. New techniques show good repeatability for measuring the amplitude of accommodation. Among the subjective methods, the minus lens technique with the tunable lens gives the best repeatability, is one of the fastest and gives results most similar to the objective method.</p>","PeriodicalId":19522,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics","volume":" ","pages":"761-768"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Subjective and objective measurements of the amplitude of accommodation: Revisiting the existing methods and clinical evaluation of newer techniques.\",\"authors\":\"Raquel Salvador-Roger, José J Esteve-Taboada, Abinaya Priya Venkataraman, Alberto Domínguez-Vicent\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/opo.13482\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the repeatability and agreement of established and newer methods for measuring the amplitude of accommodation in non-presbyopic and early presbyopic individuals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The amplitude of accommodation of 81 participants was measured using five different methods (two push-up techniques, two minus lens techniques and one objective technique) with different measurement principles. Among these, two new techniques were introduced: an electronic push-up and a minus lens technique with a tunable lens. Three repeated measurements were performed with each method. The repeatability limit and non-parametric Bland-Altman analysis were used to describe the repeatability and agreement of each method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The repeatability limit was between ±0.7 D and ±1.4 D for the minus lens techniques, around ±1.8 D for the push-up methods and ±1.4 D for the objective procedure. The largest differences in median values were found between the push-up and objective methods.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Push-up methods are most likely to overestimate accommodation, while the objective method gives the lowest results. New techniques show good repeatability for measuring the amplitude of accommodation. Among the subjective methods, the minus lens technique with the tunable lens gives the best repeatability, is one of the fastest and gives results most similar to the objective method.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19522,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"761-768\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.13482\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/3/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.13482","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评价非老花眼和早期老花眼患者调节幅度测量方法的可重复性和一致性。方法:采用5种不同的测量方法(2个俯卧撑技术、2个负透镜技术和1个物镜技术)对81名参与者的调节幅度进行测量。其中介绍了两种新技术:电子俯卧撑技术和镜头可调的负透镜技术。每种方法进行三次重复测量。使用重复性极限和非参数Bland-Altman分析来描述每种方法的重复性和一致性。结果:负透镜法重复性限在±0.7 D ~±1.4 D之间,俯卧撑法重复性限在±1.8 D左右,物镜法重复性限在±1.4 D左右。中位数差异最大的是俯卧撑和客观方法。结论:俯卧撑方法最容易高估调节能力,而客观方法的调节能力最低。新技术在测量调节幅度方面显示出良好的重复性。在主观方法中,具有可调透镜的负透镜技术具有最好的重复性,是最快的方法之一,并且结果与客观方法最相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Subjective and objective measurements of the amplitude of accommodation: Revisiting the existing methods and clinical evaluation of newer techniques.

Purpose: To evaluate the repeatability and agreement of established and newer methods for measuring the amplitude of accommodation in non-presbyopic and early presbyopic individuals.

Methods: The amplitude of accommodation of 81 participants was measured using five different methods (two push-up techniques, two minus lens techniques and one objective technique) with different measurement principles. Among these, two new techniques were introduced: an electronic push-up and a minus lens technique with a tunable lens. Three repeated measurements were performed with each method. The repeatability limit and non-parametric Bland-Altman analysis were used to describe the repeatability and agreement of each method.

Results: The repeatability limit was between ±0.7 D and ±1.4 D for the minus lens techniques, around ±1.8 D for the push-up methods and ±1.4 D for the objective procedure. The largest differences in median values were found between the push-up and objective methods.

Conclusions: Push-up methods are most likely to overestimate accommodation, while the objective method gives the lowest results. New techniques show good repeatability for measuring the amplitude of accommodation. Among the subjective methods, the minus lens technique with the tunable lens gives the best repeatability, is one of the fastest and gives results most similar to the objective method.

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
5.10
自引率
13.80%
发文量
135
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics, first published in 1925, is a leading international interdisciplinary journal that addresses basic and applied questions pertinent to contemporary research in vision science and optometry. OPO publishes original research papers, technical notes, reviews and letters and will interest researchers, educators and clinicians concerned with the development, use and restoration of vision.
×
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