2022
DOI: 10.1136/bmjophth-2022-001015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Standardised approach to the reporting and presentation of refractive data: electronic patient record

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
1
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
1
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…When assessing the presence of astigmatism in the non-progressing group of patients, there was a significant relationship between the presence of astigmatism and progression in SER (χ 2 =9.79, p=0.0018; 81% vs 41% of patients were astigmatic in the progressing vs non-progressing groups, respectively). The same pattern was found when analysing CFB 12m refractive data transformed into Long’s matrix of (f11 f12 f22)78–80 using an analogous model (online supplemental table 1; main effect of astigmatism: F (1,54) =4.45, p=0.039; mean change –0.37/–0.22×79 vs −0.23/−0.04×142 for patients with and without astigmatism, respectively). Interestingly, the change in the f12 component, which is computed from the DCYL and its respective axis, showed virtually no difference between these patient groups (online supplemental figure 1).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 60%
“…When assessing the presence of astigmatism in the non-progressing group of patients, there was a significant relationship between the presence of astigmatism and progression in SER (χ 2 =9.79, p=0.0018; 81% vs 41% of patients were astigmatic in the progressing vs non-progressing groups, respectively). The same pattern was found when analysing CFB 12m refractive data transformed into Long’s matrix of (f11 f12 f22)78–80 using an analogous model (online supplemental table 1; main effect of astigmatism: F (1,54) =4.45, p=0.039; mean change –0.37/–0.22×79 vs −0.23/−0.04×142 for patients with and without astigmatism, respectively). Interestingly, the change in the f12 component, which is computed from the DCYL and its respective axis, showed virtually no difference between these patient groups (online supplemental figure 1).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 60%
“…Between the late 70s and 80s, a combination of efforts from Long,8 Keating9–11 and Harris7 led to the formalisation of a mathematically meaningful representation of dioptric power via the concept of a symmetric, square 2×2 matrix. The matrix representation of dioptric power has enabled scientific methods of analysis to be conducted on critical optometric and ophthalmologic data for over three decades12–17 that allows dioptric power to be analysed in its entirety. The use and application of these methods to analyse dioptric data is discussed in detail elsewhere 17…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%