Publication:
Feasibility of optical quality analysis system for the objetctive assessment of accommodation insufficiency: a phase 1 study

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
2020
Authors
López Artero, Esther
Rodríguez Vallejo, Manuel
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Spanish General Council of Optometrists; Elsevier
Citations
Google Scholar
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
Abstract
Purpose: To assess differences in a new objective metric obtained with a double-pass technique between a group with accommodation insufficiency (AI) and a control group and to explore the diagnostic capabilities of this new tool in comparison to conventional procedures. Methods: Retrospective cross-sectional case-control phase 1 study. Two groups age ranging from 8 to 18 years were recruitment: AI and control group. The diagnostic criterion of AI was based on monocular accommodative amplitude (AA) 2 D below Hofstetter’s calculation for minimum AA and monocular accommodative facility (MAF) failing with minus lens and cut-off at ≤ 6 cycles per minute. Accommodative response with a double pass device (HD Analyzer, Visiometrics) was measured, performing an evaluation from +1.00 D to −3.50D (−0.5D steps), offering the width of the profile at 50% (WP) in minutes of arc. Results: Differences were found between groups for the AA, MAF and MEM retinoscopy (p < 0.0001, p < 0.001, p = 0.037). The discriminative capacity of MEM retinoscopy for AI diagnosis was significant and the cut-off that maximized the sensitivity and specificity was > 0.5 D. Considering WP 50% in different points, the discriminative AI diagnosis capacities for the points of 2.0 D and 2.50 D were significant (ROC-AUC 0.78; p = 0.03 and p = 0.02). Conclusions: Double-pass system metric differed between patients with AI and control group, therefore the aim of a Phase I study was achieved. Further steps with higher sample sizes are required to evidence if the system really provides any advantage versus conventional methods in the diagnosis of AI.
Description
Recibido: 11 enero 2020; Aceptado: 29 junio 2020
Keywords
Citation
Collections