American journal of ophthalmology · 2020
Comparison of Methods for Measuring Cyclodeviation.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Liebermann Laura, Hatt Sarah R, Leske David A, Klaehn Lindsay D, Kramer Andrea M, Holmes Jonathan M
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the double-Maddox rod test with other methods of measuring cyclodeviation DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
METHODS: We retrospectively identified 153 adults in a clinical practice with cyclodeviation assessed using double-Maddox rods, of whom 105 were also assessed using fusible synoptophore targets, 73 using nonfusible synoptophore targets, 118 using single-Maddox rod, and 43 using fundus photography. Relationships between double-Maddox rod and other tests were evaluated by calculating mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and Bland-Altman plots with linear regression.
RESULTS: Synoptophore cross-in-circle targets and the largest (of right or left) single-Maddox rod values were similar to double-Maddox values (mean differences: -1.2° and 0.1°, respectively; ICC: 0.79 and 0.82, respectively). Synoptophore house targets measured less excyclodeviation (mean difference: -2.7°; ICC: 0.71). Mean summed single-Maddox rod values were somewhat similar to double-Maddox values (mean difference: 1.5°; ICC: 0.85), but differences increased with greater cyclodeviation (r2 = 0.2678; P < .001). Fundus photographs showed large, uncorrelated differences compared with double-Maddox rod test, when summing right and left eyes and when using the largest of right or left (mean differences: 12.2° and 6.2°; ICC: -0.02 and 0.21, respectively), and differences increased with greater cyclodeviation (r2 = 0.4094; P < .001 and r2 = .1143; P= .03, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: There was good agreement between double-Maddox and the largest single- Maddox test values and synoptophore cross-in-circle targets but poorer agreement with other tests. Further study is needed to understand which measurements best reflect true cyclodeviation and relationships with symptoms.
METHODS: We retrospectively identified 153 adults in a clinical practice with cyclodeviation assessed using double-Maddox rods, of whom 105 were also assessed using fusible synoptophore targets, 73 using nonfusible synoptophore targets, 118 using single-Maddox rod, and 43 using fundus photography. Relationships between double-Maddox rod and other tests were evaluated by calculating mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and Bland-Altman plots with linear regression.
RESULTS: Synoptophore cross-in-circle targets and the largest (of right or left) single-Maddox rod values were similar to double-Maddox values (mean differences: -1.2° and 0.1°, respectively; ICC: 0.79 and 0.82, respectively). Synoptophore house targets measured less excyclodeviation (mean difference: -2.7°; ICC: 0.71). Mean summed single-Maddox rod values were somewhat similar to double-Maddox values (mean difference: 1.5°; ICC: 0.85), but differences increased with greater cyclodeviation (r2 = 0.2678; P < .001). Fundus photographs showed large, uncorrelated differences compared with double-Maddox rod test, when summing right and left eyes and when using the largest of right or left (mean differences: 12.2° and 6.2°; ICC: -0.02 and 0.21, respectively), and differences increased with greater cyclodeviation (r2 = 0.4094; P < .001 and r2 = .1143; P= .03, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: There was good agreement between double-Maddox and the largest single- Maddox test values and synoptophore cross-in-circle targets but poorer agreement with other tests. Further study is needed to understand which measurements best reflect true cyclodeviation and relationships with symptoms.