2016Journal of Ophthalmic and Vision ResearchOpen access

Evaluating three different methods of determining addition in presbyopia

JavadHeravian Shandiz, Negareh Yazdani, AbbasAzimi Khorasani, HaniehMirhajian Moghadam, AbbasAli Yekta, Hadi Ostadimoghaddam

Open full text 6 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare three different methods for determining addition in presbyopes. METHODS: The study included 81 subjects with presbyopia who aged 40-70 years. Reading addition values were measured using 3 approaches including the amplitude of accommodation (AA), dynamic retinoscopy (DR), and increasing plus lens (IPL). RESULTS: IPL overestimated reading addition relative to other methods. Mean near addition obtained by AA, DR and IPL were 1.31, 1.68 and 1.77, respectively. Our results showed that IPL method could provide 20/20 vision at near in the majority of presbyopic subjects (63.4%). CONCLUSION: The results were approximately the same for 3 methods and provided comparable final addition; however, mean near additions were higher with increasing plus lens compared with the other two methods. In presbyopic individuals, increasing plus lens is recommended as the least time-consuming method with the range of ±0.50 diopter at the 40 cm working distance.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

PURPOSE: To compare three different methods for determining addition in presbyopes. METHODS: The study included 81 subjects with presbyopia who aged 40-70 years. Reading addition values were measured using 3 approaches including the amplitude of accommodation (AA), dynamic retinoscopy (DR), and increasing plus lens (IPL). RESULTS: IPL overestimated reading addition relative to other methods. Mean near addition obtained by AA, DR and IPL were 1.31, 1.68 and 1.77, respectively. Our results showed that IPL method could provide 20/20 vision at near in the majority of presbyopic subjects (63.4%). CONCLUSION: The results were approximately the same for 3 methods and provided comparable final addition; however, mean near additions were higher with increasing plus lens compared with the other two methods. In presbyopic individuals, increasing plus lens is recommended as the least time-consuming method with the range of ±0.50 diopter at the 40 cm working distance.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 6 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

PURPOSE: To compare three different methods for determining addition in presbyopes. METHODS: The study included 81 subjects with presbyopia who aged 40-70 years. Reading addition values were measured using 3 approaches including the amplitude of accommodation (AA), dynamic retinoscopy (DR), and increasing plus lens (IPL). RESULTS: IPL overestimated reading addition relative to other methods. Mean near addition obtained by AA, DR and IPL were 1.31, 1.68 and 1.77, respectively. Our results showed that IPL method could provide 20/20 vision at near in the majority of presbyopic subjects (63.4%). CONCLUSION: The results were approximately the same for 3 methods and provided comparable final addition; however, mean near additions were higher with increasing plus lens compared with the other two methods. In presbyopic individuals, increasing plus lens is recommended as the least time-consuming method with the range of ±0.50 diopter at the 40 cm working distance.

Key concepts: Presbyopia, Dioptre, Medicine, Accommodation, Optometry, Ophthalmology, Retinoscopy, Near vision

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Evaluating three different methods of determining addition in presbyopia — Research Paper | ScholarLens