Literature DB >> 8807650

Reliability of and comparisons among methods of measuring dissociated phoria.

T L Schroeder1, B B Rainey, D A Goss, T P Grosvenor.   

Abstract

Many methods of heterophoria measurement are available clinically. This paper reviews several studies which have examined the reliability of phoria measurements, and have compared various tests of phoria measurement. Different methods of data analysis make comparison of studies difficult. Two studies indicated 95% limits of agreement of 2 to 4 delta for reliability of modified Thorington, von Graefe, and Maddox rod phoria tests. Studies using correlational analysis to compare different measurement methods have found a high degree of association of the results of these methods. Studies using statistical methods assessing the agreement of test results found a high level of agreement among some tests and a low level of agreement among some tests. Some of the various phoria measurement methods differ in the technique used for dissociation, in the ability to control accommodation adequately, in the level of proximal convergence induced, or in the method by which the phoria is quantified. These differences can result in different phoria measurements on the same patient.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8807650     DOI: 10.1097/00006324-199606000-00006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Optom Vis Sci        ISSN: 1040-5488            Impact factor:   1.973


  14 in total

1.  Effect of cumulative nearwork on accommodative facility and asthenopia.

Authors:  R Iribarren; A Fornaciari; G K Hung
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 2.031

2.  Contact lenses vs spectacles in myopes: is there any difference in accommodative and binocular function?

Authors:  Raimundo Jiménez; Loreto Martínez-Almeida; Carlos Salas; Carolina Ortíz
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2010-11-23       Impact factor: 3.117

Review 3.  Genetic and environmental contributions to strabismus and phoria: evidence from twins.

Authors:  Jeremy B Wilmer; Benjamin T Backus
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2009-08-11       Impact factor: 1.886

4.  Distance associated heterophoria measured with polarized Cross test of MKH method and its relationship to refractive error and age.

Authors:  Pavel Kříž; Šárka Skorkovská
Journal:  Clin Optom (Auckl)       Date:  2017-03-31

5.  Development and Preliminary Evaluation of a Smartphone App for Measuring Eye Alignment.

Authors:  Shrinivas Pundlik; Matteo Tomasi; Rui Liu; Kevin Houston; Gang Luo
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2019-02-08       Impact factor: 3.283

6.  Variance components affecting the repeatability of the alternating cover test.

Authors:  Marius M Paulus; Andreas Straube; Thomas Eggert
Journal:  J Eye Mov Res       Date:  2019-08-28       Impact factor: 0.957

7.  Comparison, within-session repeatability and normative data of three phoria tests.

Authors:  Alessio Facchin; Silvio Maffioletti
Journal:  J Optom       Date:  2020-08-04

8.  Synchronization of a Removable Optical Element with an Eye Tracker: Test Case for Heterophoria Measurement.

Authors:  Liat Gantz; Avi Caspi
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2020-06-29       Impact factor: 3.283

9.  An automated and objective cover test to measure heterophoria.

Authors:  Clara Mestre; Carles Otero; Fernando Díaz-Doutón; Josselin Gautier; Jaume Pujol
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-11-01       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Measuring the heterophoria: Agreement between two methods in non-presbyopic and presbyopic patients.

Authors:  Mario Cantó-Cerdán; Pilar Cacho-Martínez; Ángel García-Muñoz
Journal:  J Optom       Date:  2017-12-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.