Comparison between MEM and Nott dynamic retinoscopy

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10045/9631
Full metadata record
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributorSalud Públicaen
dc.contributor.authorCacho Martínez, Pilar-
dc.contributor.authorGarcía Muñoz, Ángel-
dc.contributor.authorGarcía Bernabeu, José R.-
dc.contributor.authorLópez Navarro, Alberto-
dc.contributor.otherUniversidad de Alicante. Departamento de Enfermería Comunitaria, Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública e Historia de la Cienciaen
dc.date.accessioned2009-02-16T07:55:48Z-
dc.date.available2009-02-16T07:55:48Z-
dc.date.created1998-04-
dc.date.issued1999-09-
dc.identifier.citationCACHO MARTÍNEZ, Pilar, et al. "Comparison between MEM and Nott dynamic retinoscopy". Optometry and Vision Science. Vol. 76, No. 9 (Sept. 1999). ISSN 1040-5488, pp. 650-655en
dc.identifier.issn1040-5488 (Print)-
dc.identifier.issn1538-9235 (Online)-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10045/9631-
dc.description.abstractPURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare MEM dynamic retinoscopy with the Nott method, to discover whether there were different results in the accommodative response and whether a relation exists between the two techniques. METHODS: We performed MEM and Nott dynamic retinoscopy in 50 visually normal university students. Both methods were performed first on the basis of static retinoscopy and second with the result of the subjective refractive exam (binocular balancing). RESULTS: A statistically significant difference existed between the methods. Nott retinoscopy assessed on basis of the subjective refractive exam was the method that obtained the lowest amounts of accommodative lag (+0.42 D), whereas MEM method performed through the static retinoscopy result showed the highest accommodative lag (+0.94 D). Furthermore, correlation analysis showed that a linear relation existed between both methods, so that the Nott value was about one-half the value of the MEM retinoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: MEM dynamic retinoscopy showed greater lag than Nott retinoscopy.en
dc.languageengen
dc.publisherAmerican Academy of Optometryen
dc.publisherLippincott, Williams & Wilkinsen
dc.subjectAccommodative responseen
dc.subjectAccommodative lagen
dc.subjectAccommodative leaden
dc.subjectDynamic retinoscopyen
dc.subjectMonocular estimate methoden
dc.subjectNott retinoscopyen
dc.subject.otherMedicina Preventiva y Salud Públicaen
dc.subject.otherÓpticaen
dc.titleComparison between MEM and Nott dynamic retinoscopyen
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleen
dc.peerreviewedsien
dc.rights.accessRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess-
Appears in Collections:INV - SP - Artículos de Revistas

Files in This Item:
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
ThumbnailComparison between MEM and Nott Dynamic Retinoscopy.pdf531,17 kBAdobe PDFOpen Preview


Items in RUA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.