Manny Ruth E, Chandler Danielle L, Scheiman Mitchelle M, Gwiazda Jane E, Cotter Susan A, Everett Donald F, Holmes Jonathan M, Hyman Leslie G, Kulp Marjean T, Lyon Don W, Marsh-Tootle Wendy, Matta Noelle, Melia B Michele, Norton Thomas T, Repka Michael X, Silbert David I, Weissberg Erik M
Optom Vis Sci. 2009 Mar;86(3):233-43. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e318197180c.
To evaluate two clinical procedures, Monocular Estimate Method (MEM) and Nott retinoscopy, for detecting accommodative lags 1.00 diopter (D) or greater in children as identified by an open-field autorefractor.
One hundred sixty-eight children 8 to <12 years old with low myopia, normal visual acuity, and no strabismus participated as part of an ancillary study within the screening process for a randomized trial. Accommodative response to a 3.00 D demand was first assessed by MEM and Nott retinoscopy, viewing binocularly with spherocylindrical refractive error corrected, with testing order randomized and each performed by a different masked examiner. The response was then determined viewing monocularly with spherical equivalent refractive error corrected, using an open-field autorefractor, which was the gold standard used for eligibility for the clinical trial. Sensitivity and specificity for accommodative lags of 1.00 D or more were calculated for each retinoscopy method compared to the autorefractor.
One hundred sixteen (69%) of the 168 children had accommodative lag of 1.00 D or more by autorefraction. MEM identified 66 children identified by autorefraction for a sensitivity of 57% (95% CI = 47 to 66%) and a specificity of 63% (95% CI = 49 to 76%). Nott retinoscopy identified 35 children for a sensitivity of 30% (95% CI = 22 to 39%) and a specificity of 81% (95% CI = 67 to 90%). Analysis of receiver operating characteristic curves constructed for MEM and for Nott retinoscopy failed to reveal alternate cut points that would improve the combination of sensitivity and specificity for identifying accommodative lag > or =1.00 D as defined by autorefraction.
Neither MEM nor Nott retinoscopy provided adequate sensitivity and specificity to identify myopic children with accommodative lag > or =1.00 D as determined by autorefraction. A variety of methodological differences between the techniques may contribute to the modest to poor agreement.
评估单眼估计法(MEM)和诺特检影法这两种临床检查方法,用于检测儿童中由开放式自动验光仪确定的1.00屈光度(D)或更高的调节滞后。
168名8至12岁患有低度近视、视力正常且无斜视的儿童作为一项随机试验筛查过程中辅助研究的一部分参与。首先通过MEM和诺特检影法评估对3.00 D需求的调节反应,双眼观察时矫正球柱面屈光不正,测试顺序随机,且每项检查由不同的盲法检查者进行。然后使用开放式自动验光仪单眼观察确定反应,该仪器是临床试验入选资格的金标准。将每种检影法与自动验光仪相比,计算1.00 D或更高调节滞后的敏感性和特异性。
168名儿童中,116名(69%)通过自动验光显示有1.00 D或更高的调节滞后。MEM识别出自动验光确定的66名儿童,敏感性为57%(95%置信区间=47%至66%),特异性为63%(95%置信区间=49%至76%)。诺特检影法识别出35名儿童,敏感性为30%(95%置信区间=22%至39%),特异性为81%(95%置信区间=67%至90%)。对MEM和诺特检影法构建的受试者工作特征曲线分析未能揭示可改善识别自动验光定义的调节滞后≥1.00 D时敏感性和特异性组合的替代切点。
MEM和诺特检影法均未提供足够的敏感性和特异性来识别自动验光确定的调节滞后≥1.00 D的近视儿童。这些技术之间的多种方法学差异可能导致一致性一般至较差。