Visual Acuity with Spherical and Toric Soft Contact Lenses in Low- to Moderate-Astigmatic Eyes

Richdale, Kathryn; Berntsen, David A.; Mack, Carla J.; Merchea, Mohinder; Barr, Joseph T.

doi:10.1097/opx.0b013e318157c6dc

Cited by 54 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The data also suggested some articles using RM-ANOVA did not explicitly test for sphericity using Mauchly's test 18,19 or subsequently correct for this problem using either the Greenhouse and Geisser 20 or Huynh and Feld 21 adjustments. 22,23 The Greenhouse and Geisser adjustment estimates a value of 'epsilon' (e) in order to correct the degrees of freedom of the 'F' distribution, thus enabling a more accurate p value when the sphericity assumption is violated. The Huynh and Feld adjustment is similar but is regarded as more liberal than Greenhouse and Geisser.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recommendations for analysis of repeated‐measures designs: testing and correcting for sphericity and use of manova and mixed model analysis

Armstrong

2017

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: A common experimental design in ophthalmic research is the repeatedmeasures design in which at least one variable is a within-subject factor. This design is vulnerable to lack of 'sphericity' which assumes that the variances of the differences among all possible pairs of within-subject means are equal. Traditionally, this design has been analysed using a repeated-measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) but increasingly more complex methods such as multivariate ANOVA (MANOVA) and mixed model analysis (MMA) are being used. This article surveys current practice in the analysis of designs incorporating different factors in research articles published in three optometric journals, namely Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics (OPO), Optometry and Vision Science (OVS), and Clinical and Experimental Optometry (CXO), and provides advice to authors regarding the analysis of repeated-measures designs. Recent findings: Of the total sample of articles, 66% used a repeated-measures design. Of those articles using a repeated-measures design, 59% and 8% analysed the data using RM-ANOVA or MANOVA respectively and 33% used MMA. The use of MMA relative to RM-ANOVA has increased significantly since 2009/10. A further search using terms to select those papers testing and correcting for sphericity ('Mauchly's test', 'Greenhouse-Geisser', 'Huynh and Feld') identified 66 articles, 62% of which were published from 2012 to the present. Summary: If the design is balanced without missing data then MANOVA should be used rather than RM-ANOVA as it gives better protection against lack of sphericity. If the design is unbalanced or with missing data then MMA is the method of choice. However, MMA is a more complex analysis and can be difficult to set up and run, and care should be taken first, to define appropriate models to be tested and second, to ensure that sample sizes are adequate.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recommendations for analysis of repeated‐measures designs: testing and correcting for sphericity and use of manova and mixed model analysis

Armstrong

2017

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Richdale et al [8] compared the visual acuity of subjects with refractive cylinder between 0.75 and 2.00 D in four different Table 2 Plot of mean (±SD) contrast sensitivity at various spatial frequencies with spectacles (baseline), spherical contact lenses and toric contact lenses.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Richdale et al [8] compared the visual acuity and wavefront aberrations in patients fit with spherical, aspheric and toric soft contact lenses and found that the latter yielded the best results. However, subjects had moderate cylindrical power that ranged between 0.75 and 2.00 DC.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Low toric soft contact lens acceptance study

Gaib

Vasudevan

2015

Contact Lens and Anterior Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Richdale ve ark. 13 Düşük (≤1,00 D) ve orta derecede (≤1,25-2,00D) astigmatizması olan 15 miyopik hastada yumuşak sferik ve torik lens uygulanması sonrasında görme keskinliklerini karşılaştırmışlardır. AcuvueAdvance (Vistakon), Biomedics55 (CooperVision), Frequency55 (CooperVision) ve SofLens66 (Bausch&Lomb) gibi 4 farklı markanın karşılaştırıldığı bu çalışmada torik lensler ile sferik eşdeğerlerine göre daha iyi görme düzeyi elde edilmiş.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Farklı Dizayna Sahip Torik Lenslerin Görme Kalitesi Üzerine Olan Etkilerinin Değerlendirilmesi

Kurna¹,

Demır²,

Altun³

et al. 2013

Tjo

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Amaç: Bu çalışmada farklı iki stabilizasyon sistemine sahip asferik Balafilcon A ve sferik Senofilcon A torik lenslerinin görme kalitesi üzerine olan etkilerinin değerlendirilmesi amaçlandı. Ge reç ve Yön tem: Kliniğimiz kontakt lens birimine başvuran 20 hastanın 40 gözü çalışmaya dahil edildi. Çalışmaya alınan hastalarda refraktif hata değerleri 0,50 ile -6,0 diyoptri arası miyopi ve >0,75 diyoptri astigmatizma idi. Hastalara prizm balast torik sitemli Balafilcon A(Pure vision torik-Baush and Lomb) ve hızlandırılmış stabilizasyon torik sistemli Senofilcon A(Acuvue Oasys for astigmatism-Johnson and Johnson) randomize olarak uygulandı. Tüm hastaların tashihsiz, gözlüklü ve Balafilcon A ve Senofilcon A torik lens takılı iken Snellen eşelinde görme keskinlikleri, Bailey Lovie düşük kontrast eşelinde kontrast duyarlılık değerleri, Nidek Magellan Mapper ile korneal aberasyon(rms) değerleri saptanarak kaydedildi ve sonuçlar karşılaştırıldı. Sonuçlar: Kontakt lensler arasında görme keskinliği düzeylerinde fark saptanmadı. Kontrast duyarlılık ölçümünde ise hastalarda kontakt lensler ile ortalama 4,8-5,4 harf artış saptandı. Toplam Yüksek Sıralı Aberasyon ortalama RMS değerleri lens öncesi 0,42±0,14 µm, Balafilcon A lens ile 0,37±0,23 µm, Senofilcon A lens ile 0,43±0,15 µm olarak bulundu. (p=0,507). Trefoil değerleri Senofilcon A lensleri ile Balafilcon A lenslere göre anlamlı derecede yüksek idi. Ölçülen diğer yüksek sıralı aberasyon değerlerinde anlamlı fark saptanmadı. Tar t›fl ma: Her iki kontakt lens grubunda yüksek ve düşük kontrastlı görme yeterli düzeydedir. Asferik dizayna sahip kontakt lensler ile; sferik dizayna sahip kontakt lenslere göre toplam yüksek sıralı aberasyon değerlerinde anlamlı olmayan azalma saptandı. Lens tasarımına bağlı aberasyonlar düzeyinde farklar saptanmasına rağmen görme kalitesi üzerinde anlamlı etki gözlenmedi. (Turk J Ophthalmol 2013; 43: 253-7) Anah tar Ke li me ler: Kontakt lens, korneal aberasyonlar, görme kalitesi, kontrast duyarlılık Sum maryPur po se: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of aspheric Balafilcon A and spherical Senofilcon A toric soft contact lenses, which have two different stabilization systems, on visual quality. Ma te ri al and Met hod: Forty eyes of 20 patients who were followed up in our contact lens section were included in this study. Refractive errors of the patients were between -0.50 and -6.0 diopters of myopia and >0.75 diopter of astigmatism. The patients were randomly assigned to wear Balafilcon A (Purevision Toric, Baush&Lomb) with prism balast toric system or spherical designed Senofilcon A (Acuvue Oasys for astigmatism, Johnson&Johnson) with accelerated stabilization toric system. We recorded and compared the visual acuity with Snellen chart, contrast sensitivity with Bailey-Lovie chart in letters, mean root mean square (RMS) of corneal aberration with by Nidek Magellan Mapper for all eyes with and without glasses and while wearing Balafilcon A or Senofilcon A toric soft contact lenses. Re sults: We did not observe any difference in...

show abstract

Visual Acuity with Spherical and Toric Soft Contact Lenses in Low- to Moderate-Astigmatic Eyes

Cited by 54 publications

References 13 publications

Recommendations for analysis of repeated‐measures designs: testing and correcting for sphericity and use of manova and mixed model analysis

Recommendations for analysis of repeated‐measures designs: testing and correcting for sphericity and use of manova and mixed model analysis

Low toric soft contact lens acceptance study

Farklı Dizayna Sahip Torik Lenslerin Görme Kalitesi Üzerine Olan Etkilerinin Değerlendirilmesi

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About