Suppr超能文献

用于确定屈光不正的睫状肌麻痹验光与近检影技术的比较。

A comparison of cycloplegic refraction to the near retinoscopy technique for refractive error determination.

作者信息

Wesson M D, Mann K R, Bray N W

机构信息

University of Alabama, Department of Optometry, School of Optometry/Medical Center, Birmingham 35294.

出版信息

J Am Optom Assoc. 1990 Sep;61(9):680-4.

PMID:2212460
Abstract

The near retinoscopy technique of refractive error determination was compared to the standard method of cycloplegic refraction using 10 "infants" (3-12 months of age) and 10 "children" (32-109 months of age). There was a significant difference between the techniques for both sphere and cylinder power. Although there was no interaction of refractive technique and age group, the difference between near retinoscopy and cycloplegic refractive error tended to be larger for infants than for children. No significant difference was found when the average refractive values were compared for monocular or binocular conditions and no significant effect was found for either gender or laterality (right versus left eye). Based on these findings, it is suggested that caution be used in substituting the near retinoscopy technique for cycloplegic refraction even utilizing a "correction" factor for the dioptric difference between techniques.

摘要

采用10名“婴儿”(3至12个月大)和10名“儿童”(32至109个月大),将近距离检影验光技术用于确定屈光不正与使用睫状肌麻痹验光的标准方法进行了比较。两种技术在球镜和柱镜度数方面存在显著差异。虽然屈光技术与年龄组之间没有相互作用,但近距离检影验光与睫状肌麻痹验光之间的差异在婴儿中往往比在儿童中更大。单眼或双眼条件下的平均屈光值比较未发现显著差异,性别或眼别(右眼与左眼)也未发现显著影响。基于这些发现,建议即使使用技术间屈光度差异的“校正”因子,用近距离检影验光技术替代睫状肌麻痹验光时也应谨慎。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验