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
_version_ 1782330442509189120
author Momeni-Moghaddam, Hamed
Kundart, James
Askarizadeh, Farshad
author_facet Momeni-Moghaddam, Hamed
Kundart, James
Askarizadeh, Farshad
author_sort Momeni-Moghaddam, Hamed
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4131318
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-41313182014-08-14 Comparing measurement techniques of accommodative amplitudes Momeni-Moghaddam, Hamed Kundart, James Askarizadeh, Farshad Indian J Ophthalmol Original Article 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. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2014-06 /pmc/articles/PMC4131318/ /pubmed/25005195 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0301-4738.126990 Text en Copyright: © Indian Journal of Ophthalmology http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Momeni-Moghaddam, Hamed
Kundart, James
Askarizadeh, Farshad
Comparing measurement techniques of accommodative amplitudes
title Comparing measurement techniques of accommodative amplitudes
title_full Comparing measurement techniques of accommodative amplitudes
title_fullStr Comparing measurement techniques of accommodative amplitudes
title_full_unstemmed Comparing measurement techniques of accommodative amplitudes
title_short Comparing measurement techniques of accommodative amplitudes
title_sort comparing measurement techniques of accommodative amplitudes
topic Original Article
url 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
work_keys_str_mv AT momenimoghaddamhamed comparingmeasurementtechniquesofaccommodativeamplitudes
AT kundartjames comparingmeasurementtechniquesofaccommodativeamplitudes
AT askarizadehfarshad comparingmeasurementtechniquesofaccommodativeamplitudes