Publication: Comparing methods of determining addition in presbyopes
Loading...
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
2008-05-09
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Wiley
Citations
Exportar
Abstract
Background: The use of plus lenses to compensate for the reduction in the range of accommodation associated with presbyopia, brings the near point of accommodation to a comfortable distance for near visual tasks. Our aim was to compare the tentative near addition determined using the most common procedures with the final addition prescribed in presbyopic patients.
Methods: Sixty-nine healthy subjects with a mean age of 51.0 years (range 40 to 60 years) were studied. Tentative near additions were determined using seven different techniques: dynamic retinoscopy, amplitude of accommodation (AA), age-expected addition, binocular fused cross-cylinder with and without myopisation, near duochrome, and balance of negative and positive relative accommodation. The power of the addition was then refined to arrive at the final addition.
Results: The mean tentative near additions were higher than the final addition for every procedure except for the fused cross-cylinder without initial myopisation and ageexpected addition methods. These biases were small in clinical terms (less than 0.25 D) with the exception of the AA procedure (0.34 D). The intervals between the 95% limits of agreement differed substantially and were always higher than ±0.50 D.
Conclusions: All the techniques used displayed similar behaviour and provided a tentative addition close to the final addition. Due to the wide agreement intervals observed, the likelihood of error is high and supports the idea that any tentative addition has to be adjusted according to the particular needs of each patient. Among the methods examined here, we would recommend the age-expected procedure, as this technique produced results that correlated best with the final addition.
Description
Es la versión posprint. "This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: "Comparing methods of determining addition in presbyopes", which has been published in final form at [http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1444-0938.2007.00159.x]. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving."
Artículo en acceso abierto en la web del editor.
UCM subjects
Unesco subjects
Keywords
Citation
1. Charman WN. The path to presbyopia: straight or crooked? Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1989; 9: 424–430.
2. Fannin TE. Presbyopic addition. In: Eskridge JB, Amos JF, Bartlett JA, eds. Clin-ical Procedures in Optometry. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott, 1991.
3. Millodot M, Millodot S. Presbyopia correction and the accommodation in reserve. Optom Vis Sci 1989; 9: 126–132.
4. Pointer JS. The presbyopic add I, II and III. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1995; 15: 235–254.
5. McMillan ES, Elliot DB, Patel B, Cox M. Loss of visual acuity is the main reason why reading addition increases after the age of sixty. Optom Vis Sci 2001; 78: 381–385.
6. American Optometric Association. Care of the Patient with Presbyopia, 2nd ed. St. Louis: AOA, 1998.
7. Blystone PA. Relationship between age and presbyopic addition using a sample of 3645 examinations from a single private practice. J Am Optom Assoc 1999; 70: 505–508.
8. Weale RA. Epidemiology of refractive errors and presbyopia. Surv Ophthalmol 2003; 48: 515–543.
9. Bito LZ. Presbyopia. Arch Ophthalmol 1988; 106: 1526–1527.
10. Hanlon SD, Nawakayashi J, Shigezawa G. A critical view of presbyopic add determination. J Am Optom Assoc 1987; 58: 468–472.
11. Elliott DB. Clinical Procedures in Primary Eye Care. Edinburgh: Butterworth Heinemann, 2003.
12. Ostrin L, Glasser A. Accommodation measurements in a prepresbyopic and presbyopic population. J Cataract Refract Surg 2004; 30: 1435–1444.
13. Bennett AG, Francis JL. Ametropia and its correction. In: Davson H, ed. The Eye: Visual Optics and the Optical Space Sense. Vol 4. New York: Academic Press Inc, 1962.
14. Carlson NB, Kurtz D. Clinical Procedures for Ocular Examination, 3rd ed. New York: Mc Graw Hill, 2004.
15. Hofstetter HW. A longitudinal study of amplitude changes in presbyopia. Am J Optom Arch Am Acad Optom 1965; 42: 3–8.
16. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measurement in medicine: The analysis of method comparison studies. The Statistician 1983; 32: 307–317.
17. Bland J, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1 (8476): 307–310.
18. Jackson TW, Goss DA. Variation and correlation of clinical tests of accommodative function in a sample of school-age children. J Am Optom Assoc 1991; 62: 857–866.
19. McClelland JK, Saunders KJ. The repeatability and validity of dynamic retinoscopy in assessing the accommodative response. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2003; 23: 243–250.
20. McKee GW. Reliability of monocular estimate method retinoscopy. Optom Mon 1981; 72: 30–31.
21. Rosenfield M, Cohen AS. Repeatability of clinical measurements of the amplitude of accommodation. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1996; 16: 247–249.
22. Rouse MW, London R, Allen DC. An evaluation of the monocular estimate method of dynamic retinoscopy. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1982; 59: 234–239.
23. Rouse MW, Deland PN, Chous R, Determan TF. Monocular accommodative facility testing reliability. Optom Vis Sci 1989; 66: 72–77.
24. Wick B, Yothers TL, Bai-Chuan J, Morse SE. Clinical testing of accommodative facility: Part I. A appraisal of the literature. Optometry 2002; 73: 11–23.
25. Abraham LM, Kuriakose T, Sivanandam V, Venkatesan N, Thomas R, Muliyil J. Amplitude of accommodation and its relation to refractive errors. Indian J Ophthalmol 2005; 53: 105–108.
26. Whitefoot H, Charman WN. Dynamic retinoscopy and accommodation. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1992; 12: 9–17.