Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry · 2002
Monocular estimate method retinoscopy: central tendency measures and relationship to refractive status and heterophoria.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tassinari John T
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Monocular estimate (estimation) method (MEM) is a widely used clinical test of accommodative response. Normative data for MEM are available based on the central tendency measures from a population of schoolchildren but not a clinical population. Also, the relationship of accommodative response to refractive status and heterophoria has been researched, but not with MEM as the determinant of the manifestation of accommodative response.
METHODS: A group of 211 pre-presbyopic clinical subjects were tested with MEM for purposes of comparing the central tendency measures of a clinical population to established normative data and determining whether MEM varied with refractive status or near phoria.
RESULTS: A lag of about one-third diopter was the mean MEM result for this clinical population. The median was +0.25 D. Myopia and near esophoria have a statistically significant relationship to MEM.
CONCLUSIONS: The central tendency measures derived from MEM administered to this population replicate the central tendency measures found in a previous normative study. This study provides preliminary evidence that the difference between accommodative response and accommodative stimulus, as measured by MEM, may be influenced by myopia and esophoria.
METHODS: A group of 211 pre-presbyopic clinical subjects were tested with MEM for purposes of comparing the central tendency measures of a clinical population to established normative data and determining whether MEM varied with refractive status or near phoria.
RESULTS: A lag of about one-third diopter was the mean MEM result for this clinical population. The median was +0.25 D. Myopia and near esophoria have a statistically significant relationship to MEM.
CONCLUSIONS: The central tendency measures derived from MEM administered to this population replicate the central tendency measures found in a previous normative study. This study provides preliminary evidence that the difference between accommodative response and accommodative stimulus, as measured by MEM, may be influenced by myopia and esophoria.