一种新型电动俯卧撑尺与传统主观调节幅度测量方法的比较。

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Current Eye Research Pub Date : 2025-11-01 Epub Date: 2025-07-14 DOI:10.1080/02713683.2025.2531524
Sven Schumayer, Jona Laukhuf, Torsten Straßer
{"title":"一种新型电动俯卧撑尺与传统主观调节幅度测量方法的比较。","authors":"Sven Schumayer, Jona Laukhuf, Torsten Straßer","doi":"10.1080/02713683.2025.2531524","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Determination of the amplitude of accommodation (AoA) is a clinical technique used in ophthalmology and optometry to assess the eye's ability to focus on near objects. This study compares the reliability of a novel motorized push-up variant with conventional manual push-up and push-down methods for the determination of AoA in 26 emmetropes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The motorized push-up method reduces limitations of the manual methods, such as differences due to varying examiner abilities, ruler placement (forehead, zygomatic bone, spectacle plane), and inconsistent target movement speeds. This is achieved by providing a participant-controlled, constant target movement of 2 cm/s, with the medial zone of the zygomatic bone as the reference point for ruler placement. Additionally, digital image-based and traditional ruler-based AoA measurements were compared. The participants' impressions of the three methods were assessed based on ease of use, confidence in measurement reliability, and comfort of experience, using a questionnaire.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The comparison of the AoA across the methods revealed no statistically significant differences. However, the concordance correlation coefficient was highest between the motorized and manual push-up method (ρ<sub>c</sub> = 0.72). All methods showed good test-retest reliability with the highest ICC found for the motorized push-up method (0.83), which also had the narrowest limits of agreement interval for accommodative demand (3.22 cm). Beyond digital and ruler-based measurements showed underestimation by both rulers, with a mean bias of 0.3 cm for the motorized ruler compared to about 2.0 cm for the conventional ruler. The questionnaire responses suggest that the motorized version outperforms the manual versions being 5 times more likely to score higher for ease of use and 6 times more likely for confidence in measurement reliability.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings demonstrate that the motorized push-up method effectively measures the AoA, reduces interfering factors, and provides higher reliability without compromising precision, making it a valuable alternative to conventional methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":10782,"journal":{"name":"Current Eye Research","volume":" ","pages":"1164-1172"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing a Novel Motorized Push-Up Ruler with Conventional Subjective Methods for Measuring the Amplitude of Accommodation.\",\"authors\":\"Sven Schumayer, Jona Laukhuf, Torsten Straßer\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02713683.2025.2531524\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Determination of the amplitude of accommodation (AoA) is a clinical technique used in ophthalmology and optometry to assess the eye's ability to focus on near objects. This study compares the reliability of a novel motorized push-up variant with conventional manual push-up and push-down methods for the determination of AoA in 26 emmetropes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The motorized push-up method reduces limitations of the manual methods, such as differences due to varying examiner abilities, ruler placement (forehead, zygomatic bone, spectacle plane), and inconsistent target movement speeds. This is achieved by providing a participant-controlled, constant target movement of 2 cm/s, with the medial zone of the zygomatic bone as the reference point for ruler placement. Additionally, digital image-based and traditional ruler-based AoA measurements were compared. The participants' impressions of the three methods were assessed based on ease of use, confidence in measurement reliability, and comfort of experience, using a questionnaire.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The comparison of the AoA across the methods revealed no statistically significant differences. However, the concordance correlation coefficient was highest between the motorized and manual push-up method (ρ<sub>c</sub> = 0.72). All methods showed good test-retest reliability with the highest ICC found for the motorized push-up method (0.83), which also had the narrowest limits of agreement interval for accommodative demand (3.22 cm). Beyond digital and ruler-based measurements showed underestimation by both rulers, with a mean bias of 0.3 cm for the motorized ruler compared to about 2.0 cm for the conventional ruler. The questionnaire responses suggest that the motorized version outperforms the manual versions being 5 times more likely to score higher for ease of use and 6 times more likely for confidence in measurement reliability.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings demonstrate that the motorized push-up method effectively measures the AoA, reduces interfering factors, and provides higher reliability without compromising precision, making it a valuable alternative to conventional methods.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Eye Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1164-1172\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Eye Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02713683.2025.2531524\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Eye Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02713683.2025.2531524","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:调节振幅(AoA)的测定是一种用于眼科和验光的临床技术,用于评估眼睛对近距离物体的聚焦能力。本研究比较了一种新的电动俯卧撑变体与传统的手动俯卧撑和俯卧撑方法在26个城市中测定AoA的可靠性。方法:电动俯卧撑方法减少了手动俯卧撑方法的局限性,如不同的考官能力,尺的位置(额头,颧骨,眼镜平面)的差异,以及目标运动速度不一致。这是通过提供参与者控制的2厘米/秒的恒定目标运动来实现的,颧骨的内侧区域作为尺子放置的参考点。此外,还比较了基于数字图像和传统尺子的AoA测量。参与者对这三种方法的印象是基于易用性、测量可靠性的信心和体验的舒适度,使用问卷进行评估。结果:两种方法的AoA比较无统计学差异。而电动俯卧撑与手动俯卧撑的一致性相关系数最高(ρc = 0.72)。所有方法均显示出良好的重测信度,其中电动俯卧撑方法的ICC最高(0.83),其适应性需求的一致性区间范围也最小(3.22 cm)。除此之外,数字测量和基于尺子的测量都显示出两种尺子的低估,电动尺子的平均偏差为0.3厘米,而传统尺子的平均偏差约为2.0厘米。问卷调查结果表明,电动版本比手动版本表现更好,在易用性方面得分高的可能性是手动版本的5倍,在测量可靠性方面得分高的可能性是手动版本的6倍。结论:电动俯卧撑方法可以有效测量AoA,减少干扰因素,在不影响精度的前提下提供更高的可靠性,是一种有价值的替代传统方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing a Novel Motorized Push-Up Ruler with Conventional Subjective Methods for Measuring the Amplitude of Accommodation.

Purpose: Determination of the amplitude of accommodation (AoA) is a clinical technique used in ophthalmology and optometry to assess the eye's ability to focus on near objects. This study compares the reliability of a novel motorized push-up variant with conventional manual push-up and push-down methods for the determination of AoA in 26 emmetropes.

Methods: The motorized push-up method reduces limitations of the manual methods, such as differences due to varying examiner abilities, ruler placement (forehead, zygomatic bone, spectacle plane), and inconsistent target movement speeds. This is achieved by providing a participant-controlled, constant target movement of 2 cm/s, with the medial zone of the zygomatic bone as the reference point for ruler placement. Additionally, digital image-based and traditional ruler-based AoA measurements were compared. The participants' impressions of the three methods were assessed based on ease of use, confidence in measurement reliability, and comfort of experience, using a questionnaire.

Results: The comparison of the AoA across the methods revealed no statistically significant differences. However, the concordance correlation coefficient was highest between the motorized and manual push-up method (ρc = 0.72). All methods showed good test-retest reliability with the highest ICC found for the motorized push-up method (0.83), which also had the narrowest limits of agreement interval for accommodative demand (3.22 cm). Beyond digital and ruler-based measurements showed underestimation by both rulers, with a mean bias of 0.3 cm for the motorized ruler compared to about 2.0 cm for the conventional ruler. The questionnaire responses suggest that the motorized version outperforms the manual versions being 5 times more likely to score higher for ease of use and 6 times more likely for confidence in measurement reliability.

Conclusion: These findings demonstrate that the motorized push-up method effectively measures the AoA, reduces interfering factors, and provides higher reliability without compromising precision, making it a valuable alternative to conventional methods.

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
Current Eye Research
Current Eye Research 医学-眼科学
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
163
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: The principal aim of Current Eye Research is to provide rapid publication of full papers, short communications and mini-reviews, all high quality. Current Eye Research publishes articles encompassing all the areas of eye research. Subject areas include the following: clinical research, anatomy, physiology, biophysics, biochemistry, pharmacology, developmental biology, microbiology and immunology.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信