Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem
dc.contributor.author | García Espinilla, Óscar | |
dc.contributor.author | Sánchez Pavón, Irene | |
dc.contributor.author | Gallegos Cocho, Inés | |
dc.contributor.author | Cañadas Suárez, María del Pilar | |
dc.contributor.author | Martín Herranz, Raúl | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-01-30T10:59:20Z | |
dc.date.available | 2024-01-30T10:59:20Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2023 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Clinical and Experimental Optometry, Enero 2023, vol. 106. p. 69-74. | es |
dc.identifier.issn | 0816-4622 | es |
dc.identifier.uri | https://uvadoc.uva.es/handle/10324/65292 | |
dc.description | Producción Científica | es |
dc.description.abstract | Clinical relevance: Ophthalmic lens adaptation requires accurate measurements of physiognomy parameters and frame angles, with a great impact on subject vision, especially when personalised progressive addition lenses are prescribed. Background: The aim of this study is to describe interdevice agreement between different methods and traditional methods (frame ruler). Methods: The agreement of the interpupillary distance, nasopupillary distance and fitting point height measured with four devices (PD-5, OptiCenter, Visioffice and a frame ruler) and of pantoscopic and frame wrap angles measured with three devices (OptiCenter, Visioffice and Essilor standard ruler) was assessed in 21 healthy volunteers, by a Bland-Altman analysis; mean difference and limits of agreement (LoA) were calculated. Results: Frame ruler nasopupillary distance measurements showed limited agreement with PD-5 [−0.38 ± 1.03 (LoA −2.40 to 1.64) and 0.44 ± 1.02 (LoA −1.72 to 2.61)] and Visioffice [0.62 ± 1.24 (LoA −1.81 to 3.05) and −0.16 ± 1.72 (LoA −3.54 to 3.22)] measurements for the right and left eyes, respectively. Poor agreement was found for interpupillary distances (PD-5 [0.21 ± 1.47 (LoA −2.67 to 3.09)], OptiCenter [−0.05 ± 1.16 (LoA −2.32 to 2.22)] and Visioffice [0.46 ± 1.95 (LoA −3.36 to 4.28)]), fitting point height (OptiCenter [−1.27 ± 2.56 (LoA −6.27 to 3.75) and −0.92 ± 2.77 (LoA −6.35 to 4.51)] and Visioffice [−5.88 ± 6.21 (LoA −18.05 to 6.29) and −5.98 ± 6.12 (LoA −17.98 to 6.02)] for the right and left eyes, respectively) and pantoscopic and frame wrap angles (OptiCenter [−4.13 ± 3.75 (LoA −11.48 to 3.22) and −1.09 ± 0.60 (LoA −2.27 to 0.09)] and Visioffice [−6.18 ± 3.53 (LoA −13.10 to 0.74) and −1.93 ± 3.49 (LoA −8.77 to 4.91)], respectively). Conclusions: These results suggest that measurements of physiognomy and frame angles are not interchangeable between assessed devices and that these differences could induce lens centration errors with a large impact on progressive addition lens prescriptions. | es |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | es |
dc.language.iso | spa | es |
dc.rights.accessRights | info:eu-repo/semantics/embargoedAccess | es |
dc.subject | Optometría | es |
dc.subject.classification | Ophthalmic lenses adaptation | es |
dc.subject.classification | Progressive addition lenses | es |
dc.subject.classification | Presbyopia management | es |
dc.title | Interdevice agreement in the measurement of physiognomy parameters and frame angles to prescribe progressive addition lenses | es |
dc.type | info:eu-repo/semantics/article | es |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1080/08164622.2021.2006042 | es |
dc.identifier.publicationfirstpage | 69 | es |
dc.identifier.publicationissue | 1 | es |
dc.identifier.publicationlastpage | 74 | es |
dc.identifier.publicationtitle | Clinical and Experimental Optometry | es |
dc.identifier.publicationvolume | 106 | es |
dc.peerreviewed | SI | es |
dc.identifier.essn | 1444-0938 | es |
dc.type.hasVersion | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion | es |