Amplitude of accommodation: Population and methodological differences

Kragha, I. K. O. K.

doi:10.1016/0275-5408(86)90121-3

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of this study showed that the push-up method results had an apparently higher accommodative amplitude [ Table 2 ], compared to the other three methods. The minus lens technique had the lowest measured amplitude among the different methods, which was in agreement with the results of Ostrin et al .,[ 11 ] Rosenfield et al .,[ 12 ] Kragha[ 13 ] Antona et al .,[ 14 ] Rambo et al .,[ 15 ] and Hokoda et al . [ 16 ]…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparing measurement techniques of accommodative amplitudes

Momeni‐Moghaddam

Kundart

Askarizadeh

2014

Indian J Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim and Background:This study was designed to compare four standard procedures, for determining the monocular accommodative amplitudes.Materials and Methods:Fifty-two students participated in this analytical-descriptive study. Accommodative amplitudes were measured using four common clinical techniques, namely: Push-up, push-down, minus lens, and modified push-up.Results:The highest amplitude was obtained using the push-up method (11.21 ± 1.85 D), while the minus lens technique gave the lowest finding (9.31 ± 1.61 D). A repeated-measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) showed a significant difference between these methods (P < 0.05), further analysis showed that this difference was only between the minus lens and other the three methods (the push-up (P < 0.001), the push-down (P < 0.001) and the modified push-up (P < 0.001)). The highest and the lowest mean difference was related to the push-up with the minus lens, and the push-down with the modified push-up, while the highest and the lowest 95% limits of agreement were related to the push-up with the modified push-up and the push-up with the push-down methods. There was almost a perfect agreement between the push-up and the push-down method, whereas, a poor agreement was present between the modified push-up and the minus lens technique, and a fair agreement existed between the other pairs.Conclusions:The quick and easy assessment of the amplitude using the push-up and the push-down methods compared to other methods, and the obtained perfect agreement between these two methods can further emphasize their use as a routine procedure in the clinic, especially if a combination of the two techniques is used to offset their slight over- and underestimation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[ 3 ] The subjective techniques include the push-up (PU), push-down (PD) (also termed push-away), and minus lens (ML) methods. [ 4 ] The results of previous studies comparing these different methods[ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ] are shown in Table 1 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing measurement techniques of accommodative amplitudes

Momeni‐Moghaddam

Kundart

Askarizadeh

2014

Indian J Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We applied amplitude of accommodation data from China to countries in Asia (Central), Asia (East), Asia (Southeast), and Asia Pacific High Income. 30 Amplitude of accommodation data from India were used in Asia (South), 31 whereas data from Nigeria were used in Caribbean, Sub-Saharan Africa (Central), Sub-Saharan Africa (East), Sub-Saharan Africa (Southern), and Sub-Saharan Africa (West), 32 and data from the United States were used in Australasia, Europe (Central), Europe (Eastern), Europe (Western), Latin America (Andean), Latin America (Central), Latin America (Southern), Latin America (Tropical), North Africa and Middle East, North America High Income, and Oceania. 33 The age-and country-specific average prevalence data, together with upper and lower 95% CI, were combined with the population data to estimate number of people with presbyopia in each country of the world in 2015 plus each decade from 2000 through 2050.…”

Section: Presbyopia Epidemiology: Systematic Review Meta-analysis and Modellingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global Prevalence of Presbyopia and Vision Impairment from Uncorrected Presbyopia

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, the patients may report the blur much later. [39,40] Hyperopes may also report blur relatively later with the push-up method, and thus the NPA may be underestimated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Near Points of Convergence and Accommodation in a Population of University Students in IranNear Points of Convergence and Accommodation in a Population of University Students in Iran

Hashemi¹,

Pakbin²,

Ali³

et al. 2019

JOVR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo determine the distribution of the near point of convergence (NPC) and near point of accommodation (NPA) in a young student population in Iran.MethodsThe subjects were selected using a cluster sampling method. All students underwent optometry tests, including visual acuity measurement, refraction, and cover test, as well as ophthalmic examinations. The NPC and NPA were measured using an accommodative target (near Snellen chart).ResultsOf 1,595 students, the data of 1,357 were analyzed. The mean NPC and NPA in the total sample were 7.25 cm (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.02 to 7.48) and 9.99 cm (95% CI, 9.69 to 10.29), respectively. Older age was associated with an increase in the NPC, which increased from 6.98 cm in 18–20 years olds to 9.51 cm in those over 30 years. The NPA was significantly associated with age and refractive errors in the multiple linear regression model, increasing from 9.92 cm in 18–20 years olds to 11.44 cm in those over 30 years (P = 0.003). Hyperopic eyes had lower NPA than myopic and emmetropic eyes (P = 0.001). In younger age groups, the mean accommodation amplitude was lower than the mean Hofstetter value. Moreover, with age, especially after 30 years, the mean values surpassed those determined using the Hofstetter formula.ConclusionThe NPC values in this study were lower than those previously reported for identical age groups. The Hofstetter formula is not always an accurate predictor of the accommodation amplitude in the Iranian adult population.

show abstract

Amplitude of accommodation: Population and methodological differences

Abstract: A literature survey of amplitudes of accommodation in various countries is presented. Results of push-up and minus-lens determination of 447 patients in Nigeria are compared with previous results. A smaller decrement in amplitude due to temperature than previously accepted is suggested.

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Comparing measurement techniques of accommodative amplitudes

Comparing measurement techniques of accommodative amplitudes

Global Prevalence of Presbyopia and Vision Impairment from Uncorrected Presbyopia

Near Points of Convergence and Accommodation in a Population of University Students in IranNear Points of Convergence and Accommodation in a Population of University Students in Iran

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About