Kanclerz Piotr, Pluta Karolina, Momeni-Moghaddam Hamed, Khoramnia Ramin
Department of Ophthalmology, Hygeia Clinic, 80-286 Gdansk, Poland.
Medical University of Gdansk, 80-210 Gdansk, Poland.
Diagnostics (Basel). 2022 Feb 23;12(3):568. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12030568.
Purpose: This study aims to compare and assess the agreement of the objective amplitude of accommodation (AA) measured using a new-generation closed-field autorefractor with conventional subjective methods. Methods: In total, 84 healthy individuals with an age range of 19 to 50 years participated in this cross-sectional study. AA was measured objectively with a Nidek autorefractor (AR-1a; Nidek Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) and subjectively using push-up (PU) and minus-lens (ML) methods in a random order. Comparison between different methods was performed using repeated-measures analysis of variance and the Bonferroni test for pairwise comparisons. In addition to the Pearson correlation, the Bland and Altman method and the intraclass correlation coefficient were used to determine the agreement between the three techniques. Only the right-eye results were used for analysis. Results: AA measured using the Nidek autorefractor (3.43 ± 1.94 D) was significantly lower than that measured with PU (7.67 ± 2.38 D; p < 0.001) and ML (7.60 ± 2.81 D; p < 0.001) methods. The difference between the subjective methods was not significant statistically (p = 1.0). The correlation for Nidek measurements and PU and ML methods was moderate (r = 0.5502 and r = 0.6832, respectively), while it was strong when comparing subjective methods (r = 0.7821). The limits of agreement for Nidek vs. PU, Nidek vs. ML, and PU vs. ML methods were −8.28 to −0.23 D, −8.19 to −0.15 D, and −3.38 to 3.51 D, respectively. Conclusions: There was a moderate agreement between AA obtained with subjective methods and objective Nidek measurements. The objective AA measurements obtained with a new Nidek autorefractor were significantly lower than subjective measurements.
本研究旨在比较和评估使用新一代封闭式自动验光仪测量的客观调节幅度(AA)与传统主观方法之间的一致性。方法:共有84名年龄在19至50岁之间的健康个体参与了这项横断面研究。使用尼德克自动验光仪(AR - 1a;日本东京尼德克有限公司)客观测量AA,并以随机顺序使用上推法(PU)和负透镜法(ML)主观测量AA。使用重复测量方差分析和用于两两比较的邦费罗尼检验对不同方法进行比较。除了皮尔逊相关性外,还使用布兰德 - 奥特曼方法和组内相关系数来确定这三种技术之间的一致性。仅使用右眼结果进行分析。结果:使用尼德克自动验光仪测量的AA(3.43±1.94 D)显著低于使用PU法(7.67±2.38 D;p<0.001)和ML法(7.60±2.81 D;p<0.001)测量的结果。主观方法之间的差异在统计学上不显著(p = 1.0)。尼德克测量与PU法和ML法的相关性为中等(分别为r = 0.5502和r = 0.6832),而比较主观方法时相关性很强(r = 0.7821)。尼德克与PU法、尼德克与ML法以及PU与ML法的一致性界限分别为−8.28至−0.23 D、−8.19至−0.15 D和−3.38至3.51 D。结论:主观方法获得的AA与尼德克客观测量之间存在中等一致性。使用新型尼德克自动验光仪获得的客观AA测量值显著低于主观测量值。