Journal of AAPOS : the official publication of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus · 2008
Comparison of a diplopia questionnaire to the Goldmann diplopia field.
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.
Adams Wendy E, Hatt Sarah R, Leske David A, Holmes Jonathan M
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare diplopia scores obtained with a new diplopia questionnaire to the established Goldmann diplopia field.
METHODS: Seventy-five consecutive patients with binocular diplopia associated with any type of strabismus were assessed with the diplopia questionnaire and the Goldmann perimeter. Diplopia was scored, according to published protocols, from 0 to 100, where 0 is no diplopia and 100 is diplopia in all measured positions. Where there was a discrepancy of more than 20 points between the Goldmann diplopia field and the diplopia questionnaire, two observers classified the reasons for the discrepancy.
RESULTS: There was fair overall agreement between the diplopia questionnaire and the Goldmann diplopia field, with 44 (59%) of 75 patients having agreement within 20 points (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.53, 95% CI 0.35-0.68). Of the 31 (41%) of 75 patients who had a discrepancy of more than 20 points, 13 (42%) of 31 exhibited a higher diplopia score with the diplopia questionnaire than the Goldmann perimeter, and 18 (58%) of 31 showed a higher diplopia score with the Goldmann diplopia field than the questionnaire. The most frequent reason for a higher diplopia questionnaire score was the proximal test distance of the Goldmann diplopia field (6 of 13 cases). The most frequent reason for a higher Goldmann diplopia field score appeared to be patient adaptation to diplopia (9 of 18 cases).
CONCLUSIONS: The diplopia questionnaire may better represent binocular diplopia in everyday life than the Goldmann perimeter, capturing adaptation to diplopia, suppression, fragile fusion, and diplopia with distance fixation.
METHODS: Seventy-five consecutive patients with binocular diplopia associated with any type of strabismus were assessed with the diplopia questionnaire and the Goldmann perimeter. Diplopia was scored, according to published protocols, from 0 to 100, where 0 is no diplopia and 100 is diplopia in all measured positions. Where there was a discrepancy of more than 20 points between the Goldmann diplopia field and the diplopia questionnaire, two observers classified the reasons for the discrepancy.
RESULTS: There was fair overall agreement between the diplopia questionnaire and the Goldmann diplopia field, with 44 (59%) of 75 patients having agreement within 20 points (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.53, 95% CI 0.35-0.68). Of the 31 (41%) of 75 patients who had a discrepancy of more than 20 points, 13 (42%) of 31 exhibited a higher diplopia score with the diplopia questionnaire than the Goldmann perimeter, and 18 (58%) of 31 showed a higher diplopia score with the Goldmann diplopia field than the questionnaire. The most frequent reason for a higher diplopia questionnaire score was the proximal test distance of the Goldmann diplopia field (6 of 13 cases). The most frequent reason for a higher Goldmann diplopia field score appeared to be patient adaptation to diplopia (9 of 18 cases).
CONCLUSIONS: The diplopia questionnaire may better represent binocular diplopia in everyday life than the Goldmann perimeter, capturing adaptation to diplopia, suppression, fragile fusion, and diplopia with distance fixation.