Universidad Complutense de Madrid
E-Prints Complutense

Intra-examiner repeatability and agreement in accommodative response measurements

Impacto

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Antona Peñalba, Beatriz and Sánchez Pérez, Isabel and Barrio de Santos, Ana Rosa and Barra Lázaro, Francisco and González Díaz-Obregón, Enrique (2009) Intra-examiner repeatability and agreement in accommodative response measurements. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 29 (6). pp. 606-614. ISSN 0275-5408

[img]
Preview
PDF
381kB

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2009.00679.x




Abstract

Purpose: Clinical measurement of the accommodative response (AR) identifies the focusing plane of a subject with respect to the accommodative target. To establish whether a significant change in AR has occurred, it is important to determine the repeatability of this measurement. This study had two aims: First, to determine the intraexaminer repeatability of AR measurements using four clinical methods: Nott retinoscopy, monocular estimate method (MEM) retinoscopy, binocular crossed cylinder test (BCC) and near autorefractometry. Second, to study the level of agreement between AR measurements obtained with the different methods.
Methods: The AR of the right eye at one accommodative demand of 2.50 D (40 cm) was measured on two separate occasions in 61 visually normal subjects of mean age 19.7 years (range 18-32 years). The intraexaminer repeatability of the tests, and agreement between them, were estimated by the Bland-Altman method. We determined mean differences (MD) and the 95% limits of agreement [coefficient of repeatability (COR) and coefficient of agreement (COA)].
Results: Nott retinoscopy and BCC offered the best repeatability, showing the lowest MD and narrowest 95% interval of agreement (Nott: -0.10 +/- 0.66 D, BCC: -0.05 +/- 0.75 D). The 95% limits of agreement for the four techniques were similar (COA = +/- 0.92 to +/- 1.00 D) yet clinically significant, according to the expected values of the AR. The two dynamic retinoscopy techniques (Nott and MEM) had a better agreement (COA = +/- 0.64 D) although this COA must be interpreted in the context of the low MEM repeatability (COR = +/- 0.98 D).
Conclusions: The best method of assessing AR was Nott retinoscopy. The BCC technique was also repeatable, and both are recommended as suitable methods for clinical use. Despite better agreement between MEM and Nott, agreement among the remaining methods was poor such that their interchangeable use in clinical practice is not recommended.


Item Type:Article
Additional Information:

Es preprint del artículo publicado. "This is the pre-peer reviewed version of the following article: Intra-examiner repeatability and agreement in accommodative response measurements, which has been published in final form at [http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2009.00679.x]. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving."

Uncontrolled Keywords:Accommodative response; Agreement; Dynamic retinoscopy; Measurement; Repeatability
Subjects:Medical sciences > Optics > Optometry
Medical sciences > Optics > Geometrical and instumental optics
ID Code:34248
Deposited On:15 Dec 2015 15:53
Last Modified:15 Dec 2015 15:53

Origin of downloads

Repository Staff Only: item control page