The role of clinical diagnosis criteria on the frequency of accommodative insufficiency

Feasibility of optical quality analysis system for the objective assessment of accommodation insufficiency: a phase 1 study

PURPOSE

To assess differences in a new objective metric obtained with a double-pass technique between a group with accommodation insufficiency (AI) and a control group and to explore the diagnostic capabilities of this new tool in comparison to conventional procedures.

METHODS

Retrospective cross-sectional case-control phase 1 study. Two groups with ages ranging from 8 to 18 years were recruited: AI and control group. The diagnostic criterion of AI was based on monocular accommodative amplitude (AA), 2 D below Hofstetter's calculation for minimum AA, and monocular accommodative facility (MAF), failing with minus lens and cut-off at ≤ 6 cycles per minute. Accommodative response with a double pass device (HD Analyzer, Visiometrics) was measured, performing an evaluation from +1.00 D to -3.50D (-0.5D steps), offering the width of the profile at 50% (WP) in minutes of arc.

RESULTS

Differences were found between groups for the AA, MAF and MEM retinoscopy (p < 0.0001, p < 0.001, p = 0.037). The discriminative capacity of MEM retinoscopy for AI diagnosis was significant and the cut-off that maximized the sensitivity and specificity was > 0.5 D. Considering WP 50% in different points, the discriminative AI diagnosis capacities for the points of 2.0 D and 2.50 D were significant (ROC-AUC 0.78; p = 0.03 and p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Double-pass system metric differed between patients with AI and control group, therefore the aim of a Phase I study was achieved. Further steps with higher sample sizes are required to evidence if the system really provides any advantage versus conventional methods in the diagnosis of AI.

Accommodative Insufficiency: Prevalence, Impact and Treatment Options

PURPOSE

Accommodative insufficiency (AI), defined as the inability to stimulate accommodation in pre-presbyopic individuals, has gained much attention over recent years. Despite the enormity of the available information, there is a significant lack of clarity regarding the criteria for definition, methodology adopted for testing and diagnosis, and the varied prevalence across the globe. This review aims to gather evidence that is pertinent to the prevalence, impact and efficacy of available treatment options for AI.

METHODS

PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane Collaboration search engines were used with the keywords prevalence, accommodative insufficiency, symptoms, plus lens, vision therapy and treatment. Peer-reviewed articles published between 1992 and 2019 were included in the review. After reviewing the studies for study methodology and robustness, 83 articles were chosen for this literature review.

RESULTS

The prevalence of AI ranges between <1.00% and 61.6% across studies. The prevalence shows considerable variation across ethnicities and age groups. There is significant variation in the study methodology, diagnostic criteria and number of tests performed to arrive at the diagnosis. Not many studies have explored the prevalence beyond 20 years of age. The prevalence of AI is high among children with special needs. There is no high-quality evidence regarding the standard treatment protocol for AI. Both vision therapy and low plus lenses have shown efficacy in independent studies, and no studies have compared these two treatment options.

CONCLUSION

The understanding of AI prevalence is currently limited owing to the lack of a standard set of diagnostic criteria and wide variations in the study methodology. There is a lack of high-quality evidence suggesting the best possible treatment for AI. The current gaps in the literature have been identified and future scope for exploration is elucidated.