TY - JOUR
T1 - Accommodative facility in eyes with and without myopia
AU - Pandian, Ashok
AU - Sankaridurg, Padmaja R.
AU - Naduvilath, Thomas
AU - O'Leary, Daniel
AU - Sweeney, Deborah F.
AU - Rose, Kathryn
AU - Mitchell, Paul
PY - 2006
Y1 - 2006
N2 - PURPOSE. To compare accommodative facility in eyes with myopia to that in eyes with emmetropia or hyperopia and to determine whether accommodative facility can be used to predict an association with myopia. METHODS. In the Sydney Myopia Study, year-1 school children (6.7 ± 0.4 years) were assessed for accommodative facility at distance (3 m) and near (33 cm) with semiautomated flippers. Spherical equivalent refractive error (RE) was defined as myopia (≤ −0.50 D), emmetropia (> −0.50 D, but < +1.50 D), and hyperopia (≥ +1.50 D) based on postcycloplegia readings. Only right eye data were considered. Differences between groups were analyzed with the Brown-Forsythe F test after adjustment for age and gender. Multiple comparisons were adjusted with the by the Games-Howell method. RESULTS. Of the 1328 right eyes assessed, 20 (1.5%) eyes were myopic, 977 (73.6%) were emmetropic, and 331 (24.9%) were hyperopic. At distance, mean facility was less for myopic eyes at 5.5 ± 2.0 cycles per minute (cpm) in comparison to 6.9 ± 1.7 cpm for eyes with emmetropia or hyperopia (P = 0.005). Myopic eyes recorded greater positive and negative accommodative response times than did emmetropic or hyperopic eyes (P < 0.05). There were no differences among the groups in near facility. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for distance facility was 0.692 (P = 0.003, 95% CI, 0.580–0.805). CONCLUSIONS. Myopic eyes have reduced accommodative facility at distance, and accommodative responsiveness to both positive and negative defocus is slow. However, accommodative facility as a test does not have sufficient power to discriminate eyes with myopia from other refractive errors.
AB - PURPOSE. To compare accommodative facility in eyes with myopia to that in eyes with emmetropia or hyperopia and to determine whether accommodative facility can be used to predict an association with myopia. METHODS. In the Sydney Myopia Study, year-1 school children (6.7 ± 0.4 years) were assessed for accommodative facility at distance (3 m) and near (33 cm) with semiautomated flippers. Spherical equivalent refractive error (RE) was defined as myopia (≤ −0.50 D), emmetropia (> −0.50 D, but < +1.50 D), and hyperopia (≥ +1.50 D) based on postcycloplegia readings. Only right eye data were considered. Differences between groups were analyzed with the Brown-Forsythe F test after adjustment for age and gender. Multiple comparisons were adjusted with the by the Games-Howell method. RESULTS. Of the 1328 right eyes assessed, 20 (1.5%) eyes were myopic, 977 (73.6%) were emmetropic, and 331 (24.9%) were hyperopic. At distance, mean facility was less for myopic eyes at 5.5 ± 2.0 cycles per minute (cpm) in comparison to 6.9 ± 1.7 cpm for eyes with emmetropia or hyperopia (P = 0.005). Myopic eyes recorded greater positive and negative accommodative response times than did emmetropic or hyperopic eyes (P < 0.05). There were no differences among the groups in near facility. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for distance facility was 0.692 (P = 0.003, 95% CI, 0.580–0.805). CONCLUSIONS. Myopic eyes have reduced accommodative facility at distance, and accommodative responsiveness to both positive and negative defocus is slow. However, accommodative facility as a test does not have sufficient power to discriminate eyes with myopia from other refractive errors.
KW - myopia
KW - vision
UR - http://handle.uws.edu.au:8081/1959.7/505176
M3 - Article
SN - 0146-0404
VL - 47
SP - 4725
EP - 4731
JO - Investigative ophthalmology & visual science
JF - Investigative ophthalmology & visual science
IS - 11
ER -