Cargando…

Comparing measurement techniques of accommodative amplitudes

AIM AND BACKGROUND: This study was designed to compare four standard procedures, for determining the monocular accommodative amplitudes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-two students participated in this analytical-descriptive study. Accommodative amplitudes were measured using four common clinical tech...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Momeni-Moghaddam, Hamed, Kundart, James, Askarizadeh, Farshad
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4131318/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25005195
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0301-4738.126990
Descripción
Sumario:AIM AND BACKGROUND: This study was designed to compare four standard procedures, for determining the monocular accommodative amplitudes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.