...
首页> 外文期刊>Ophthalmic & physiological optics: the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) >Comparison of presbyopic additions determined by the fused cross-cylinder method using alternative target background colours
【24h】

Comparison of presbyopic additions determined by the fused cross-cylinder method using alternative target background colours

机译:使用替代目标背景色通过融合交叉圆柱法确定的老花眼添加物的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Purpose: To compare and contrast standard and alternative versions of refractor head (phoropter)-based charts used to determine reading addition.Methods: Forty one presbyopic subjects aged between 42 and 60 years were tested. Tentative additions were determined using a red-green background letter chart, and 4 cross-grid charts (with white, red, green, or red-green backgrounds) which were used with the fused cross cylinder (FCC) method. The final addition for a 40 cm working distance was determined for each subject by subjectively adjusting the tentative additions.Results: There were significant differences in the tentative additions obtained using the 5 methods (repeated measures anova, p<0.001). The mean differences between the tentative and final additions were <0.10 D and were not clinically meaningful, with the exception of the red-green letter test, and the red background in the FCC method. There were no significant differences between the tentative and final additions for the green background in the FCC method (p > 0.05). The intervals of the 95% limits of agreement were under +-0.50 D, and the narrowest interval (+-0.26 D) was for the red-green background.Conclusions: The 3 FCC methods with a white, green, or red-green background provided a tentative addition close to the final addition. Compared with the other methods, the FCC method with the red-green background had a narrow range of error. Further, since this method combines the functions of both the fused cross-cylinder test and the duochrome test, it can be a useful technique for determining presbyopic additions.
机译:目的:比较和对比用于确定阅读量的基于屈光度头(phoropter)的图表的标准版本和替代版本。方法:对41位年龄在42至60岁之间的老花眼受试者进行了测试。使用红绿色背景字母图和4个交叉网格图(带有白色,红色,绿色或红绿色背景)确定​​了临时添加,它们与融合交叉圆柱(FCC)方法一起使用。通过主观调整试验性添加物,确定每个受试者工作距离为40 cm的最终添加物。结果:使用5种方法获得的试验性添加物有显着差异(重复测量anova,p <0.001)。暂定添加物和最终添加物之间的平均差异为<0.10 D,除了红绿色字母测试和FCC方法中的红色背景外,在临床上无意义。在FCC方法中,绿色背景的暂定添加量与最终添加量之间无显着差异(p> 0.05)。 95%一致性限制的间隔在+ -0.50 D以下,最窄的间隔(+ -0.26 D)在红绿色背景下。结论:3种FCC方法具有白色,绿色或红绿色背景提供了接近最终添加的临时添加。与其他方法相比,具有红绿色背景的FCC方法具有较小的误差范围。此外,由于该方法结合了融合的跨圆柱测试和双色测试的功能,因此对于确定老花眼的添加量可能是一种有用的技术。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号