Naeser K
Department of Ophthalmology, Arhus University Hospital, Arhus, Denmark.
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001 Jan;27(1):25-30. doi: 10.1016/s0886-3350(00)00605-2.
To test several methods of assessing surgically induced astigmatism (SIA). Department of Ophthalmology, Arhus University Hospital, Arhus, Denmark. Assessment methods can be divided into 3 groups. Group 1 includes methods that consider only astigmatic magnitude and disregard astigmatic direction, such as the algebraic and simple subtraction methods. Group 2 can be termed "astigmatic magnitude not considering axis" and includes several almost identical techniques known as the methods of Naylor, Jaffe, Kaye, Holladay, and Olsen. Group 3 includes Naeser polar value analysis and the methods later described by Alpins and Holladay. The methods were tested in situations in which the expected result was known. When this result was not produced, the specific assessment method was considered falsified in a classical Popperian manner. The simple falsification experiments revealed that the methods in Groups 1 and 2 are erroneous. Mathematical analysis disclosed that the methods in Group 3 are similar, although derived from different concepts. The algebraic, simple subtraction, astigmatic magnitude not considering axis, and vector decomposition methods for assessment of SIA are erroneous and should not be used. The Naeser, Alpins, and Holladay methods are identical and in agreement with current research in optometry.
为测试几种评估手术性散光(SIA)的方法。丹麦奥胡斯大学医院眼科。评估方法可分为3组。第1组包括仅考虑散光度数而忽略散光方向的方法,如代数法和简单减法。第2组可称为“不考虑轴的散光度数”,包括几种几乎相同的技术,即内勒、贾菲、凯伊、霍拉迪和奥尔森法。第3组包括内泽尔极坐标值分析法以及阿尔平斯和霍拉迪后来描述的方法。这些方法在预期结果已知的情况下进行测试。当未得出该结果时,特定的评估方法被认为以经典的波普尔方式被证伪。简单的证伪实验表明,第1组和第2组的方法是错误的。数学分析表明,第3组的方法虽然源自不同概念,但相似。用于评估SIA的代数法、简单减法、不考虑轴的散光度数法和矢量分解法是错误的,不应使用。内泽尔法、阿尔平斯法和霍拉迪法是相同的,并且与当前验光研究一致。