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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
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 |