Antona B, Barrio A, Barra F, Gonzalez E, Sanchez I
Departamento de Optica II (Optometria y Vision), Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain.
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2008 Sep;28(5):475-91. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2008.00583.x.
This study was designed to determine the repeatability of fusional vergence ranges measured using the rotary prisms in the phoropter and in free space using the prism bar. The level of agreement between the two methods was also investigated.
In two separate sessions, negative and positive fusional vergence ranges (NFV and PFV, respectively) were measured at distance and near in 61 young adults (mean age 19.74, S.D. 2.5 years) who were unfamiliar with the methods used. Base-in and base-out blur, break and recovery points were sequentially determined. Both sets of measurements were obtained by the same examiner. At each distance, NFV was determined first and then PFV. The repeatability of the tests and agreement between measurements made with the phoropter rotary prisms and the prism bar were estimated by the Bland and Altman method.
For both the phoropter rotary prisms and prism bar, NFV measurements showed better repeatability than PFV at both near and distance. Mean differences recorded for the NFV break and recovery points were non-significant (under 0.5Delta), while those observed for PFV were generally greater than 2Delta. When agreement between the two tests was assessed, it was found that break points were higher when determined using the phoropter rotary prisms, while recovery points were generally higher for the prism bar method. In clinical terms, according to the expected values of the NFV and PFV, agreement between the two techniques can be described as fair, because although mean differences were never greater than 5.5Delta, 95% agreement intervals were as wide as +/-8.00Delta for NFV and +/-13.19Delta for PFV.
The two methods used to measure fusional vergences showed fairly good inter-session repeatability for measuring NFV but repeatability was reduced for PFV measurements. The level of agreement observed between the two methods was such that their interchangeable use in clinical practice is not recommended.
本研究旨在确定使用综合验光仪中的旋转棱镜以及在自由空间中使用棱镜杆测量融合性聚散范围的可重复性。同时还研究了两种方法之间的一致性水平。
在两个不同的时间段内,对61名不熟悉所使用方法的年轻成年人(平均年龄19.74岁,标准差2.5岁)进行远距离和近距离的负融合性聚散范围(NFV)和正融合性聚散范围(PFV)测量。依次确定内聚和外聚模糊、破裂点和恢复点。两组测量均由同一名检查者进行。在每个距离,先确定NFV,然后确定PFV。采用Bland和Altman方法评估测试的可重复性以及综合验光仪旋转棱镜和棱镜杆测量结果之间的一致性。
对于综合验光仪旋转棱镜和棱镜杆,NFV测量在近距离和远距离的可重复性均优于PFV。NFV破裂点和恢复点的平均差异无统计学意义(小于0.5棱镜度),而PFV的平均差异通常大于2棱镜度。在评估两种测试之间的一致性时,发现使用综合验光仪旋转棱镜确定的破裂点更高,而棱镜杆方法的恢复点通常更高。从临床角度来看,根据NFV和PFV的预期值,两种技术之间的一致性可描述为尚可,因为尽管平均差异从未大于5.5棱镜度,但NFV的95%一致性区间宽达±8.00棱镜度,PFV的95%一致性区间宽达±13.19棱镜度。
用于测量融合性聚散的两种方法在测量NFV时显示出相当好的不同时间段可重复性,但PFV测量的可重复性降低。两种方法之间观察到的一致性水平不建议在临床实践中互换使用。