Publication: Intra-examiner repeatability and agreement in accommodative response measurements
Loading...
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
2009-11
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Wiley-Blackwell Publishing
Citations
Exportar
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.
Description
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."
UCM subjects
Unesco subjects
Keywords
Citation
Argimon, J. M. and Jiménez, J. (2004) Métodos de Investigación Clínica y Epidemiológica. Elsevier, Madrid, pp. 90–100.
Birnbaum, M. H. (1993) Optometric Management of NearpointVision Disorders. Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, pp. 53–71, 161–192.
Bland, J. and Altman, D. G. (1986) Statistical methods forassessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1, 307–310.
Cacho, M. P., García-Muñoz, A., García-Bernabeu, J. R. and López, A. (1999) Comparison between MEM and Nottdynamic retinoscopy. Optom. Vis. Sci. 76, 650–655.
Campbell, C. E., Benjamin, W. J. and Howland, H. C. (1998) Objective refraction: retinoscopy, autorefraction and pho-torefraction. In: Borish's Clinical Refraction (ed. W. J.Benjamin), Saunders, Philadelphia, pp. 559–628.
Chat, S. W. and Edwards, M. H. (2001) Clinical evaluation ofthe Shin-Nippon SRW-5000 autorefractor in children. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 21, 87–100.
D'Augostino, R. B. and Stevens, M. A. (1986). Tests for theNormal Distribution. Marcel Dekker, New York.
Elliott, D. B. (2007). Clinical Procedures in Primary Eye Care. Butterworth Heinemann Elsevier, Edinburgh. pp. 194–195.
García, A. and Cacho, M. P. (2002) MEM and Nottretinoscopy in patient with disorders of vergence and accommodation. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 22, 214–20.
Goodson, R. A. and Afanador, A. J. (1974) The accommodative response to the near point crossed cylinder test. Optom. Wkly. 65, 1138–1140.
Goss, D. (1992) Clinical accommodation testing. Curr. Opin.Ophthalmol. 3, 78–82.
Goss, D. A., Groppel, P. and Dominguez, L. (2005) Comparison of MEM retinoscopy & Nott retinoscopy & their interexaminer repeatabilities. J. Behav. Optom. 16,149–155.
Gwiazda, J., Thorn, F., Bauer, J. and Held, R. (1993) Myopicchildren show insufficient accommodative response to blur. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 34, 690–694.
Jackson, T. W. and Goss, D. A. (1991) Variation andcorrelation of clinical tests of accomodative function in asample of school-age children. J. Am. Optom. Assoc. 62,857–866.
Kimura, S., Hasebe, S. and Ohtsuki, H. (2007) Systematic measurement errors involved in over-refraction using anautorrefractor (Grand-Seiko WV-500): is measurement of accommodative lag through spectacle lenses valid? Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 27, 281–286.
Levine, S., Ciuffreda, K. J. and Selenow, A. (1985) Clinical assessment of accommodative facility in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. J. Am. Optom. Assoc. 56, 286–290.
Locke, L. C. and Somers, W. (1989) A comparison study ofdynamic retinoscopy techniques. Optom. Vis. Sci. 66, 540–544.
Mallen, E. A. H., Wolffsohn, J. S., Gilmartin, B. and Tsujimura, S. (2001) Clinical evaluation of the Shin-Nippon SRW-5000 autorrefractor in adults. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 21, 101–107.
McClelland, J. K. and Saunders, K. J. (2003) The repeatabilityand validity of dynamic retinoscopy in assessing the accommodative response. Opthalmic Physiol. Opt. 23, 243–250.
McKee, G. W. (1981) Reliability of monocular estimate method retinoscopy. Optom. Mon. 72, 30–31.
Nakasuka, C., Hasebe, S., Nonaka, F. and Ohtsuki, H. (2003) Accommodative lag under habitual seeing conditions: comparison between adult myopes and emmetropes. Jpn. J.Ophthalmol. 47, 291–298.
Nakasuka, C., Hasebe, S., Nonaka, F. and Ohtsuki, H. (2005) Accommodative lag under habitual seeing conditions: comparison between myopic and emmetropic children. Jpn. J.Ophthalmol. 49, 189–194.
Rosenfield, M. and Gilmartin, B. (1990) Effect of target proximity on the open-loop accommodative response. Optom. Vis. Sci. 67, 74–79.
Rosenfield, M., Portello, J. K., Blustein, G. H. and Jang, C.(1996) Comparison of clinical techniques to assess the near accommodative response. Optom. Vis. Sci. 73, 382–388.
Rouse, M. W., London, R. and Allen, D. C. (1982) Anevaluation of the monocular estimate method of dynamicretinoscopy. Am. J. Optom. Physiol. Opt. 59, 234–239.
Saladin, J. J. (1998) Phorometry and stereopsis. In: Clinical Refraction (ed. W. J. Benjamin), Saunders Company,Philadelphia, pp. 724–773.
Scheiman, M. and Wick, B. (2008). Clinical Management of Binocular Vision. Heterophoric Accommodative and Eye movement Disorders. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp. 9, 20, 58–76
Whitefoot, H. and Charman, W. N. (1992) Dynamic retinoscopy and accommodation. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 12, 8–17.
Wick, B. and Hall, P. (1987) Relation among accommodative facility, lag, and amplitude in elementary school children. Am. J. Optom. Physiol. Opt. 64, 593–598.
Wolffsohn, J. S., Gilmartin, B., Mallen, E. A. and Tsujimura,S. (2001) Continuous recording of accommodation and pupil size using the Shin-Nippon SRW-5000 autorrefractor. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 21, 108–113.
Wolffsohn, J. S., Gilmartin, B., Mallen, E. A. and Tsujimura,S. (2004) Simultaneous continuous recording of accommodation and pupil size using the modified Shin-Nippon SRW-5000 autorrefractor. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 24, 142–147.
Zadnik, C. (1997). The Ocular Examination. Measurements and Findings. WB Saunders Company, Philadelphia, pp. 98–103.
Zadnik, K., Mutti, D. O. and Adams, A. J. (1992) Therepeatability of measurement of the ocular components. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 33, 2325–2333.