Person:
Antona Peñalba, Beatriz

Profile Picture
First Name
Beatriz
Last Name
Antona Peñalba
URI
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/79924
Affiliation
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Faculty / Institute
Óptica y Optometría
Department
Optometría y Visión
Area
Optica
Identifiers
UCM identifierORCIDScopus Author IDDialnet IDGoogle Scholar ID

Filters

20191
Reset filters

Settings

Author: García Montero, María × Subject: 617.7-001.15 ×

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The role of clinical diagnosis criteria on the frequency of accommodative insufficiency
    (International journal of ophthalmology, 2019) García Montero, María; Antona Peñalba, Beatriz; Barrio de Santos, Ana Rosa; Nieto Zayas, Carmen; Martínez Alberquilla, Irene; Hernández Verdejo, José Luis
    AIM: To estimate and compare the frequency of accommodative insufficiency (AI) within the same clinical population sample depending on the type of clinical criteria used for diagnosis. Comparing the frequency within the same population would help to minimize bias due to sampling or methodological variability. METHODS: Retrospective study of 205 medical records of symptomatic subjects free of any organic cause and symptoms persisting despite optical compensation evaluated. Based on the most commonly clinical diagnostics criteria found in the literature, four diagnostics criteria were established for AI (I, II, III and IV) based on subjective accommodative tests: monocular accommodative amplitude two or more diopters below Hofstetter’s minimum value [15-(0.25×age)] (I, II, III, IV); failing monocular accommodative facility with minus lens, establishing the cut-off in 0 cycles per minute (cpm) (I) and in 6 cpm (II, III); failing binocular accommodative facility with minus lens, establishing the cut-off in 0 cpm (I) and in 3 cpm (II). RESULTS: The proportion of AI (95%CI) for criteria I, II, III and IV were 1.95% (0.04%-3.86%), 2.93% (0.31%-4.57%), 6.34% (1.90%-7.85%) and 41.95% (35.14%-48.76%) respectively, with a statistically significant difference shown between these values (χ2=226.7, P<0.001). A pairwise multiple comparison revealed that the proportion of AI detected for criterion IV was significantly greater than the proportion for the rest of the criteria (P-adjusted<0.05 in all cases). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of cases of AI within the same clinical population varies with the clinical diagnostic criteria selected. The variation is statistically significant when considering the monocular accommodative amplitude as the only clinical diagnostic sign.