Hussaindeen Jameel Rizwana, Murali Amirthaa
Binocular Vision Clinic, Sankara Nethralaya, Unit of Medical Research Foundation, Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai 600006, India.
Elite School of Optometry (in Collaboration with SASTRA Deemed University), Unit of Medical Research Foundation, Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai 600016, India.
Clin Optom (Auckl). 2020 Sep 11;12:135-149. doi: 10.2147/OPTO.S224216. eCollection 2020.
Accommodative insufficiency (AI), defined as the inability to stimulate accommodation in pre-presbyopic individuals, has gained much attention over recent years. Despite the enormity of the available information, there is a significant lack of clarity regarding the criteria for definition, methodology adopted for testing and diagnosis, and the varied prevalence across the globe. This review aims to gather evidence that is pertinent to the prevalence, impact and efficacy of available treatment options for AI.
PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane Collaboration search engines were used with the keywords prevalence, accommodative insufficiency, symptoms, plus lens, vision therapy and treatment. Peer-reviewed articles published between 1992 and 2019 were included in the review. After reviewing the studies for study methodology and robustness, 83 articles were chosen for this literature review.
The prevalence of AI ranges between <1.00% and 61.6% across studies. The prevalence shows considerable variation across ethnicities and age groups. There is significant variation in the study methodology, diagnostic criteria and number of tests performed to arrive at the diagnosis. Not many studies have explored the prevalence beyond 20 years of age. The prevalence of AI is high among children with special needs. There is no high-quality evidence regarding the standard treatment protocol for AI. Both vision therapy and low plus lenses have shown efficacy in independent studies, and no studies have compared these two treatment options.
The understanding of AI prevalence is currently limited owing to the lack of a standard set of diagnostic criteria and wide variations in the study methodology. There is a lack of high-quality evidence suggesting the best possible treatment for AI. The current gaps in the literature have been identified and future scope for exploration is elucidated.
调节不足(AI)被定义为在早老性远视个体中无法刺激调节,近年来受到了广泛关注。尽管有大量可用信息,但在定义标准、测试和诊断所采用的方法以及全球各地不同的患病率方面仍存在明显的不明确之处。本综述旨在收集与AI的患病率、影响及现有治疗方案的疗效相关的证据。
使用PubMed、谷歌学术和Cochrane协作搜索引擎,关键词为患病率、调节不足、症状、正透镜、视觉治疗和治疗。纳入了1992年至2019年间发表的经同行评审的文章。在审查研究的方法学和稳健性后,选择了83篇文章进行本综述。
各项研究中AI的患病率在<1.00%至61.6%之间。患病率在不同种族和年龄组之间存在显著差异。在研究方法、诊断标准以及为得出诊断而进行的测试数量方面存在显著差异。没有多少研究探讨过20岁以上人群的患病率。AI在有特殊需求的儿童中患病率较高。关于AI的标准治疗方案,没有高质量的证据。视觉治疗和低度数正透镜在独立研究中均显示出疗效,且没有研究对这两种治疗方案进行比较。
由于缺乏一套标准的诊断标准以及研究方法的广泛差异,目前对AI患病率的了解有限。缺乏高质量证据表明AI的最佳治疗方法。已确定了当前文献中的差距,并阐明了未来的探索方向。