Momeni-Moghaddam Hamed, Kundart James, Askarizadeh Farshad
Health Promotion Research Center, Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Zahedan, Iran.
Indian J Ophthalmol. 2014 Jun;62(6):683-7. doi: 10.4103/0301-4738.126990.
This study was designed to compare four standard procedures, for determining the monocular accommodative amplitudes.
Fifty-two students participated in this analytical-descriptive study. Accommodative amplitudes were measured using four common clinical techniques, namely: Push-up, push-down, minus lens, and modified push-up.
The highest amplitude was obtained using the push-up method (11.21 ± 1.85 D), while the minus lens technique gave the lowest finding (9.31 ± 1.61 D). A repeated-measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) showed a significant difference between these methods (P < 0.05), further analysis showed that this difference was only between the minus lens and other the three methods (the push-up (P < 0.001), the push-down (P < 0.001) and the modified push-up (P < 0.001)). The highest and the lowest mean difference was related to the push-up with the minus lens, and the push-down with the modified push-up, while the highest and the lowest 95% limits of agreement were related to the push-up with the modified push-up and the push-up with the push-down methods. There was almost a perfect agreement between the push-up and the push-down method, whereas, a poor agreement was present between the modified push-up and the minus lens technique, and a fair agreement existed between the other pairs.
The quick and easy assessment of the amplitude using the push-up and the push-down methods compared to other methods, and the obtained perfect agreement between these two methods can further emphasize their use as a routine procedure in the clinic, especially if a combination of the two techniques is used to offset their slight over- and underestimation.
本研究旨在比较四种用于测定单眼调节幅度的标准程序。
52名学生参与了这项分析描述性研究。使用四种常见的临床技术测量调节幅度,即:上推法、下推法、负透镜法和改良上推法。
上推法获得的幅度最高(11.21±1.85D),而负透镜技术得出的结果最低(9.31±1.61D)。重复测量方差分析(ANOVA)显示这些方法之间存在显著差异(P<0.05),进一步分析表明这种差异仅存在于负透镜法与其他三种方法之间(上推法(P<0.001)、下推法(P<0.001)和改良上推法(P<0.001))。最高和最低平均差异分别与上推法和负透镜法、下推法和改良上推法相关,而最高和最低95%一致性界限分别与上推法和改良上推法、上推法和下推法相关。上推法和下推法之间几乎完全一致,而改良上推法和负透镜技术之间一致性较差,其他配对之间存在中等一致性。
与其他方法相比,使用上推法和下推法可快速简便地评估调节幅度,并且这两种方法之间获得的完全一致性可进一步强调它们在临床中作为常规程序的应用,特别是如果将这两种技术结合使用以抵消它们轻微的高估和低估。