PURPOSE: Defocus curves are used to evaluate the subjective range of clear vision of presbyopic corrections such as in eyes implanted with accommodating intraocular lenses (IOLs). This study determines whether letter sequences and/or lens presentation order ought to be randomised when measuring defocus curves. METHODS: Defocus curves (range +2.00DS to -2.00DS) were measured on 18 pre-presbyopic subjects (mean age 24.1+/-4.2 years) for six combinations of sequential or randomised positive or negative lens progression and non-randomised or randomised letter sequences. The letters were presented on a computerised logMAR chart at 6m. RESULTS: Overall there was a statistically significant difference between the six combinations (ANOVA, p<0.05) attributable to the combination of non-randomised letters with non-randomised lens progression from negative to positive defocus (p<0.01). There was no statistically significant difference in defocus curve measurements if both letters and lens order were randomised compared to if only one of these variables was randomised (p>0.05). Non-randomised letters, with a sequential lens progression from negative to positive, was significantly different to all other combinations when compared individually (Student's T-test, p<0.003 on all comparisons), and was confirmed as the sole source of the overall significant difference. There was no statistically significant difference if both lens presentation order and letter sequences were randomised compared to if only one or the other of these variables was randomised. CONCLUSION: Non-randomised letters and non-randomised lens progression on their own did not affect the subjective amplitude of accommodation as measured by defocus curves, although their combination should be avoided.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Defocus curves are used to evaluate the subjective range of clear vision of presbyopic corrections such as in eyes implanted with accommodating intraocular lenses (IOLs). This study determines whether letter sequences and/or lens presentation order ought to be randomised when measuring defocus curves. METHODS: Defocus curves (range +2.00DS to -2.00DS) were measured on 18 pre-presbyopic subjects (mean age 24.1+/-4.2 years) for six combinations of sequential or randomised positive or negative lens progression and non-randomised or randomised letter sequences. The letters were presented on a computerised logMAR chart at 6m. RESULTS: Overall there was a statistically significant difference between the six combinations (ANOVA, p<0.05) attributable to the combination of non-randomised letters with non-randomised lens progression from negative to positive defocus (p<0.01). There was no statistically significant difference in defocus curve measurements if both letters and lens order were randomised compared to if only one of these variables was randomised (p>0.05). Non-randomised letters, with a sequential lens progression from negative to positive, was significantly different to all other combinations when compared individually (Student's T-test, p<0.003 on all comparisons), and was confirmed as the sole source of the overall significant difference. There was no statistically significant difference if both lens presentation order and letter sequences were randomised compared to if only one or the other of these variables was randomised. CONCLUSION: Non-randomised letters and non-randomised lens progression on their own did not affect the subjective amplitude of accommodation as measured by defocus curves, although their combination should be avoided.
Authors: Carlos Palomino-Bautista; Rubén Sánchez-Jean; David Carmona-González; David P Piñero; Ainhoa Molina-Martín Journal: Int Ophthalmol Date: 2019-10-03 Impact factor: 2.031
Authors: Carlos Palomino-Bautista; Rubén Sánchez-Jean; David Carmona-Gonzalez; David P Piñero; Ainhoa Molina-Martín Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Sandeep K Dhallu; Amy L Sheppard; Tom Drew; Toshifumi Mihashi; Juan F Zapata-Díaz; Hema Radhakrishnan; D Robert Iskander; James S Wolffsohn Journal: Vision (Basel) Date: 2019-06-28
Authors: Elizabeth M Law; Hetal D Buckhurst; Rajesh K Aggarwal; Hosam El-Kasaby; Jonathan Marsden; Gary L Shum; Phillip J Buckhurst Journal: Ophthalmic Physiol Opt Date: 2022-04-11 Impact factor: 3.992