mdh.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Foveal function in children treated for amblyopia.
2010 (English)In: Acta ophthalmologica, ISSN 1755-3768, Vol. 88, no 2, 222-226 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate foveal function, using three different methods, in children treated for monocular amblyopia. METHODS: A sample of 24 otherwise healthy children with treated amblyopia and an age-matched control group of 25 healthy children were examined for best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) using a standard decimal (KM) chart and the computerized TriVA method at 50% and 10% contrasts. Foveal function was also measured with the rarebit fovea test (RFT), which is included in the rarebit perimetry program package. This test uses very small and bright dots against a dark background. The result is expressed as mean hit rate (MHR). RESULTS: Amblyopic eyes showed significantly lower BCVA when evaluated with the KM chart and with the TriVA test at different contrast levels, compared with both fellow eyes and control eyes. No statistically significant difference between amblyopic and fellow eyes was found when foveal function was evaluated with the RFT (median MHRs 91.5% and 94.5%, respectively), although results for both amblyopic and fellow eyes were statistically lower than those of the control group (median MHR 97%) (p = 0.001 and p = 0.046, respectively). This might indicate that the RFT provides different information about foveal function than conventional VA tests. CONCLUSIONS: The findings in the current study accord with those of other studies reporting abnormalities in the fellow eyes of previously treated amblyopic patients. These findings may reflect a general disturbance in the visual system rather than a monocular adaptation to refractive error or ocular motor disturbance.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2010. Vol. 88, no 2, 222-226 p.
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mdh:diva-10714DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2008.01432.xISI: 000274933700041PubMedID: 19183413OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mdh-10714DiVA: diva2:360209
Available from: 2010-11-02 Created: 2010-11-02 Last updated: 2013-12-19Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Martin, Lene

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 129 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf