HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Pandian, A. Articles by Mitchell, P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Pandian, A. Articles by Mitchell, P.

Accommodative Facility in Eyes with and without Myopia

¹From the Vision Co-operative Research Centre, Sydney, Australia; the ²School of Optometry and Vision Science, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; the ³Department of Optometry and Ophthalmic Dispensing, Anglia Polytechnic University, United Kingdom; and the ⁴School of Applied Vision Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, and the ⁵Department of Ophthalmology, Centre for Vision Research, Westmead Hospital, University of Sydney, Australia.

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.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				H. Radhakrishnan, P. M. Allen, and W. N. Charman Dynamics of Accommodative Facility in Myopes Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., September 1, 2007; 48(9): 4375 - 4382. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]