ArticleBMJ open ophthalmology2024
Comparison of the accommodative amplitude measured with and without the use of a specialised accommodative rule in children.
Article in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the agreement between measurements of accommodative amplitude (AoA) in children using a specialised accommodative rule and measurments without it.
methodsA total of 502 children underwent optometric examinations, including the measurement of visual acuity, objective and subjective refraction. AoA measurements were done with and without the Berens accommodative rule. The measurements of AoA were conducted monocularly using a -4 D lens. A fixation stick containing English letters equivalent to 20/30 visual acuity and a long millimetre ruler was used to measure AoA without the accommodative rule. This measurement was performed by the two trained examiners. The agreement between these methods was reported by 95% limits of agreement (LoA) and interclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
resultsThe mean age of the participants was 11.7±1.3 years (range: 9-15 years) and 52.4% were male. The mean AoA with and without the accommodative rule was 20.02±6.02 D and 22.46±6.32 D, respectively. The 95% LoA between the two methods was -12.5 to 7.5 D, and the ICC was 0.67 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.70). The 95% LoA was narrower in higher age groups and males compared with females (18.92 vs 20.87). The 95% LoA was narrower in hyperopes (16.83 D) compared with emmetropes (18.37 D) and myopes (18.27 D). The agreement was not constant and decreased in higher values of AoA.
conclusionThere is a poor and non-constant agreement between the measurements of the AoA with and without the accommodative rule. The mean AoA was 2.5 D lower with using the accommodative rule.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.