Aviso: para depositar documentos, por favor, inicia sesión e identifícate con tu cuenta de correo institucional de la UCM con el botón MI CUENTA UCM. No emplees la opción AUTENTICACIÓN CON CONTRASEÑA
 

Intra-examiner repeatability and agreement in accommodative response measurements

dc.contributor.authorAntona Peñalba, Beatriz
dc.contributor.authorSánchez Pérez, Isabel
dc.contributor.authorBarrio De Santos, Ana Rosa
dc.contributor.authorBarra Lázaro, Francisco
dc.contributor.authorGonzález Díaz-Obregón, Enrique
dc.date.accessioned2023-06-20T04:00:25Z
dc.date.available2023-06-20T04:00:25Z
dc.date.issued2009-11
dc.descriptionEs 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."
dc.description.abstractPurpose: 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.
dc.description.departmentDepto. de Optometría y Visión
dc.description.facultyFac. de Óptica y Optometría
dc.description.refereedTRUE
dc.description.statuspub
dc.eprint.idhttps://eprints.ucm.es/id/eprint/34248
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1475-1313.2009.00679.x
dc.identifier.issn0275-5408
dc.identifier.officialurlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2009.00679.x
dc.identifier.relatedurlhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2009.00679.x/abstract
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/44795
dc.issue.number6
dc.journal.titleOphthalmic and Physiological Optics
dc.language.isoeng
dc.page.final614
dc.page.initial606
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing
dc.rights.accessRightsopen access
dc.subject.cdu617.753.1
dc.subject.cdu617.7-001.5
dc.subject.cdu617.75-07
dc.subject.keywordAccommodative response
dc.subject.keywordAgreement
dc.subject.keywordDynamic retinoscopy
dc.subject.keywordMeasurement
dc.subject.keywordRepeatability
dc.subject.ucmOptometría
dc.subject.ucmÓptica geométrica e instrumental
dc.subject.unesco2209.15 Optometría
dc.subject.unesco2209.06 Óptica geométrica
dc.titleIntra-examiner repeatability and agreement in accommodative response measurements
dc.typejournal article
dc.volume.number29
dcterms.referencesArgimon, 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.
dspace.entity.typePublication
relation.isAuthorOfPublication4d93581c-fa46-4362-886f-96b13e817c13
relation.isAuthorOfPublication489b4330-7884-43a8-846f-7a6dea5cdeec
relation.isAuthorOfPublication8215ed9f-0de3-40c2-b832-e1377967bba7
relation.isAuthorOfPublication0f69baec-32d9-4337-bf45-1f03d71cf698
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery4d93581c-fa46-4362-886f-96b13e817c13

Download

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
2009_OPO_intraexaminer [proof].pdf
Size:
372.2 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format

Collections