比较四种测量异视和适应性辐辏与适应性比率的方法

Q2 Medicine Vision (Switzerland) Pub Date : 2024-10-18 DOI:10.3390/vision8040062
Noelia Nores-Palmas, Veronica Noya-Padin, Eva Yebra-Pimentel, Maria Jesus Giraldez, Hugo Pena-Verdeal
{"title":"比较四种测量异视和适应性辐辏与适应性比率的方法","authors":"Noelia Nores-Palmas, Veronica Noya-Padin, Eva Yebra-Pimentel, Maria Jesus Giraldez, Hugo Pena-Verdeal","doi":"10.3390/vision8040062","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The study aimed to assess the agreement between OptoTab SERIES, alternating Cover Test, Modified Thorington test, and Von Graefe method in measuring heterophoria and accommodative convergence over accommodation (AC/A) ratio. In an initial step, heterophoria was assessed at both distance and near in a cohort of 76 healthy young volunteers using the previously described tests. Subsequently, to determine the AC/A ratio, near-vision measurements were repeated with +1.00 D and -1.00 D lenses. All tests were performed in a randomized order across participants under consistent conditions. Significant differences were found between the Modified Thorington test and all other tests at distance (Wilcoxon test, all <i>p</i> ≤ 0.001) and between Von Graefe and all other tests at near (Wilcoxon test, all <i>p</i> ≤ 0.005). Regarding the AC/A ratio, significant differences were observed between all methods in +1.00 D AC/A ratio, except for the Modified Thorington test vs. the alternating Cover Test (Wilcoxon test, <i>p</i> = 0.024). In the -1.00 D AC/A ratio, differences were observed between OptoTab POCKET and all the other tests (Wilcoxon test, all <i>p</i> ≤ 0.001). The results indicate that all methods are interchangeable except the Modified Thorington test at distance and Von Graefe at near. For the AC/A ratio, only the Modified Thorington test is interchangeable with the alternating Cover Test using +1.00 D lenses and all are interchangeable using -1.00 D lenses except OptoTab POCKET.</p>","PeriodicalId":36586,"journal":{"name":"Vision (Switzerland)","volume":"8 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11503332/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Four Methods for Measuring Heterophoria and Accommodative Convergence over Accommodation Ratio.\",\"authors\":\"Noelia Nores-Palmas, Veronica Noya-Padin, Eva Yebra-Pimentel, Maria Jesus Giraldez, Hugo Pena-Verdeal\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/vision8040062\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The study aimed to assess the agreement between OptoTab SERIES, alternating Cover Test, Modified Thorington test, and Von Graefe method in measuring heterophoria and accommodative convergence over accommodation (AC/A) ratio. In an initial step, heterophoria was assessed at both distance and near in a cohort of 76 healthy young volunteers using the previously described tests. Subsequently, to determine the AC/A ratio, near-vision measurements were repeated with +1.00 D and -1.00 D lenses. All tests were performed in a randomized order across participants under consistent conditions. Significant differences were found between the Modified Thorington test and all other tests at distance (Wilcoxon test, all <i>p</i> ≤ 0.001) and between Von Graefe and all other tests at near (Wilcoxon test, all <i>p</i> ≤ 0.005). Regarding the AC/A ratio, significant differences were observed between all methods in +1.00 D AC/A ratio, except for the Modified Thorington test vs. the alternating Cover Test (Wilcoxon test, <i>p</i> = 0.024). In the -1.00 D AC/A ratio, differences were observed between OptoTab POCKET and all the other tests (Wilcoxon test, all <i>p</i> ≤ 0.001). The results indicate that all methods are interchangeable except the Modified Thorington test at distance and Von Graefe at near. For the AC/A ratio, only the Modified Thorington test is interchangeable with the alternating Cover Test using +1.00 D lenses and all are interchangeable using -1.00 D lenses except OptoTab POCKET.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36586,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Vision (Switzerland)\",\"volume\":\"8 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11503332/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Vision (Switzerland)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/vision8040062\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vision (Switzerland)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/vision8040062","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

该研究旨在评估 OptoTab SERIES、交替遮盖试验、改良索林顿试验和 Von Graefe 方法在测量异视和容纳辐辏比(AC/A)方面的一致性。首先,在 76 名健康的年轻志愿者中,使用之前描述的测试方法对异视进行了远近评估。随后,为了确定AC/A比率,使用+1.00 D和-1.00 D镜片重复进行了近视测量。所有测试都是在一致的条件下以随机顺序对参与者进行的。结果发现,改良索林顿测试与所有其他测试在远视力方面存在显著差异(Wilcoxon 检验,所有 p 均小于 0.001),而 Von Graefe 测试与所有其他测试在近视力方面存在显著差异(Wilcoxon 检验,所有 p 均小于 0.005)。关于 AC/A 比率,除了改良 Thorington 试验与交替覆盖试验(Wilcoxon 检验,p = 0.024)之外,所有方法在 +1.00 D AC/A 比率上都有显著差异。在-1.00 D AC/A 比率中,OptoTab POCKET 与所有其他测试方法都存在差异(Wilcoxon 检验,所有 p 均小于 0.001)。结果表明,除了远距离的 Modified Thorington 检验和近距离的 Von Graefe 检验外,所有方法都可以互换。在 AC/A 比率方面,只有使用 +1.00 D 镜片的改良索林顿测试与交替遮盖测试可以互换,而使用 -1.00 D 镜片的所有测试方法都可以互换,OptoTab POCKET 除外。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of Four Methods for Measuring Heterophoria and Accommodative Convergence over Accommodation Ratio.

The study aimed to assess the agreement between OptoTab SERIES, alternating Cover Test, Modified Thorington test, and Von Graefe method in measuring heterophoria and accommodative convergence over accommodation (AC/A) ratio. In an initial step, heterophoria was assessed at both distance and near in a cohort of 76 healthy young volunteers using the previously described tests. Subsequently, to determine the AC/A ratio, near-vision measurements were repeated with +1.00 D and -1.00 D lenses. All tests were performed in a randomized order across participants under consistent conditions. Significant differences were found between the Modified Thorington test and all other tests at distance (Wilcoxon test, all p ≤ 0.001) and between Von Graefe and all other tests at near (Wilcoxon test, all p ≤ 0.005). Regarding the AC/A ratio, significant differences were observed between all methods in +1.00 D AC/A ratio, except for the Modified Thorington test vs. the alternating Cover Test (Wilcoxon test, p = 0.024). In the -1.00 D AC/A ratio, differences were observed between OptoTab POCKET and all the other tests (Wilcoxon test, all p ≤ 0.001). The results indicate that all methods are interchangeable except the Modified Thorington test at distance and Von Graefe at near. For the AC/A ratio, only the Modified Thorington test is interchangeable with the alternating Cover Test using +1.00 D lenses and all are interchangeable using -1.00 D lenses except OptoTab POCKET.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Vision (Switzerland)
Vision (Switzerland) Health Professions-Optometry
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
62
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
Optical Bench Evaluation of a Novel, Hydrophobic, Acrylic, One-Piece, Polyfocal Intraocular Lens with a "Zig-Zag" L-Loop Haptic Design. Optimal Timing for Intraocular Pressure Measurement Following Phacoemulsification Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis. Corneal Endothelial Microscopy: Does a Manual Recognition of the Endothelial Cells Help the Morphometric Analysis Compared to a Fully Automatic Approach? Combined Epiretinal Proliferation and Internal Limiting Membrane Inverted Flap for the Treatment of Large Macular Holes. Comparison of Four Methods for Measuring Heterophoria and Accommodative Convergence over Accommodation Ratio.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1