Borghi R A, Rouse M W
Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1985 Mar;62(3):169-72. doi: 10.1097/00006324-198503000-00004.
This study compared refractive error obtained by the "near retinoscopy" method as described by Mohindra and static retinoscopy under cycloplegic conditions. Twenty-two patients between the age of 3.6 and 10.0 years were objectively refracted. The examiner performed a near retinoscopy on each patient. Immediately after this procedure, 2 drops of 1% Cyclogyl (cyclopentolate) were administered to each eye, 5 min apart. Cycloplegic retinoscopy was performed 35 to 40 min after the 2nd drop was administered. In order to reduce examiner bias, the specific powers of the neutralizing lenses were unknown to the examiner throughout the entire procedure. On average, retinoscopy under cycloplegic conditions revealed +0.50 to +0.75 D more plus than near retinoscopy. Although the Student's t-test indicated the values were significantly different on an absolute basis, a Pearson's r of +0.85 was found when all meridians were compared. In addition, if a "cut" factor is introduced to adjust for normal accommodative tonus eliminated under cycloplegic conditions, the two procedures produce essentially the same results.
本研究比较了Mohindra所描述的“近检影法”与静态检影法在睫状肌麻痹状态下所获得的屈光不正情况。对22名年龄在3.6至10.0岁之间的患者进行了客观验光。检查者对每位患者进行了近检影。在此操作之后,立即给每只眼睛滴入2滴1%的赛克罗奇(环喷托酯),间隔5分钟。在滴入第二滴后35至40分钟进行睫状肌麻痹检影。为了减少检查者偏差,在整个过程中检查者均不知道中和镜片的具体度数。平均而言,睫状肌麻痹状态下的检影显示比近检影多+0.50至+0.75 D的正度数。虽然学生t检验表明这些值在绝对值上有显著差异,但在比较所有子午线时发现皮尔逊相关系数r为+0.85。此外,如果引入一个“校正”因素来调整在睫状肌麻痹状态下消除的正常调节张力,这两种方法会产生基本相同的结果。