Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2009 Mar;86(3):233-43.
doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e318197180c.

Accommodative lag by autorefraction and two dynamic retinoscopy methods

Correction of Myopia Evaluation Trial 2 Study Group for the Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group; Ruth E Manny, Danielle L Chandler, Mitchelle M Scheiman, Jane E Gwiazda, Susan A Cotter, Donald F Everett, Jonathan M Holmes, Leslie G Hyman, Marjean T Kulp, Don W Lyon, Wendy Marsh-Tootle, Noelle Matta, B Michele Melia, Thomas T Norton, Michael X Repka, David I Silbert, Erik M Weissberg
Collaborators
Comparative Study

Accommodative lag by autorefraction and two dynamic retinoscopy methods

Correction of Myopia Evaluation Trial 2 Study Group for the Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group et al. Optom Vis Sci. 2009 Mar.

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate two clinical procedures, Monocular Estimate Method (MEM) and Nott retinoscopy, for detecting accommodative lags 1.00 diopter (D) or greater in children as identified by an open-field autorefractor.

Methods: One hundred sixty-eight children 8 to <12 years old with low myopia, normal visual acuity, and no strabismus participated as part of an ancillary study within the screening process for a randomized trial. Accommodative response to a 3.00 D demand was first assessed by MEM and Nott retinoscopy, viewing binocularly with spherocylindrical refractive error corrected, with testing order randomized and each performed by a different masked examiner. The response was then determined viewing monocularly with spherical equivalent refractive error corrected, using an open-field autorefractor, which was the gold standard used for eligibility for the clinical trial. Sensitivity and specificity for accommodative lags of 1.00 D or more were calculated for each retinoscopy method compared to the autorefractor.

Results: One hundred sixteen (69%) of the 168 children had accommodative lag of 1.00 D or more by autorefraction. MEM identified 66 children identified by autorefraction for a sensitivity of 57% (95% CI = 47 to 66%) and a specificity of 63% (95% CI = 49 to 76%). Nott retinoscopy identified 35 children for a sensitivity of 30% (95% CI = 22 to 39%) and a specificity of 81% (95% CI = 67 to 90%). Analysis of receiver operating characteristic curves constructed for MEM and for Nott retinoscopy failed to reveal alternate cut points that would improve the combination of sensitivity and specificity for identifying accommodative lag > or =1.00 D as defined by autorefraction.

Conclusions: Neither MEM nor Nott retinoscopy provided adequate sensitivity and specificity to identify myopic children with accommodative lag > or =1.00 D as determined by autorefraction. A variety of methodological differences between the techniques may contribute to the modest to poor agreement.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Figure 1
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 2
Figure 2
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 3
Figure 3
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 4
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Sheard C. Dynamic skiametry. Am J Optom. 1929;6(11):609–23.
    1. Morgan MW., Jr Accommodation and its relationship to convergence. Am J Optom Arch Am Acad Optom. 1944;21:183–95.
    1. Ramsdale C. Monocular and binocular accommodation. Ophthal Opt. 1979;19:602–22.
    1. Nakatsuka C, Hasebe S, Nonaka F, Ohtsuki H. Accommodative lag under habitual seeing conditions: comparison between adult myopes and emmetropes. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2003;47(3):291–8. - PubMed
    1. McBrien NA, Millodot M. The effect of refractive error on the accommodative response gradient. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1986;6(2):145–9. - PubMed

Publication types