Arthur B W, Marshall A, McGillivray D
Department of Ophthalmology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 1993 Jan-Feb;30(1):53-5. doi: 10.3928/0191-3913-19930101-13.
A direct comparison between the Worth four-dot (W4D) and Polarized four-dot (P4D) flashlights is reported in a randomized trial on 107 unselected patients greater than 2.5 years old. The primary outcome variable was the interpretable response rate. Secondary outcomes were response time and age of test failure. There were 29 patients who failed to complete the W4D test, but only 10 patients who could not complete the P4D test, giving interpretable response rates of 73% and 91%, respectively (p < .001). The P4D test was found to be less dissociative and easier to administer. It also had a higher detection rate for fusion. We recommend its use as a tool in the clinical evaluation of binocular sensorial states.
一项针对107名年龄超过2.5岁的未经过筛选的患者的随机试验报告了Worth四点(W4D)手电筒和偏振四点(P4D)手电筒之间的直接比较。主要结局变量是可解释的反应率。次要结局是反应时间和测试失败的年龄。有29名患者未能完成W4D测试,但只有10名患者无法完成P4D测试,可解释的反应率分别为73%和91%(p < .001)。发现P4D测试的分离性较小且更易于实施。它对融合的检测率也更高。我们建议将其用作双眼感觉状态临床评估的工具。