单眼雾视与双眼同时雾视主观验光结果比较

doi:10.6040/j.issn.1673-3770.0.2024.404

山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报 ›› 2026, Vol. 40 ›› Issue (3): 87-91.doi: 10.6040/j.issn.1673-3770.0.2024.404

单眼雾视与双眼同时雾视主观验光结果比较

周桂梅^1,2,管琪¹,杨蓉¹,但洋¹,李建虹¹,刘鹏¹,熊馨颖¹,李雪¹,谭韵琪¹,廖萱^1,2

1.川北医学院眼视光医学院, 四川南充 637000;
2.川北医学院附属医院眼科, 四川南充 637000

发布日期:2026-05-22
通讯作者: 廖萱. E-mail:aleexand@163.com
基金资助:
四川省科技厅研究项目(2023NSFSC0595);国家级大学生创新训练项目(202310634024);川北医学院青年项目(CBY22-QNA15);川北医学院大学生创新训练项目(XJ202310634216);国家级大学生创新训练项目(202410634011)

Comparison of subjective refraction results between monocular fogging and binocular simultaneous fogging

ZHOU Guimei^1,2, GUAN Qi¹, YANG Rong¹, DAN Yang¹, LI Jianhong¹, LIU Peng¹, XIONG Xinying¹, LI Xue¹, TAN Yunqi¹, LIAO Xuan^1,2

1. Department of Medical School of Ophthalmology & Optometry, North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong 637000, Sichuan, China;
2.Department of Ophthalmology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong 637000, Sichuan, China

Published:2026-05-22

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的比较“单眼雾视”与“双眼同时雾视”主观验光结果的临床一致性,为验光实践中雾视方式的选择提供依据。方法采用诊断性试验设计,于2023年11月纳入川北医学院62名志愿者(17~23岁),随机分为两组。每位受试者均接受“单眼雾视”与“双眼同时雾视”两种主观验光,并于检查前完成右眼未雾视主观验光作为对照。比较不同雾视方法测得的球镜度、柱镜度及散光矢量J0、J45的差异,通过组内相关系数与Bland-Altman图评价一致性。结果两种雾视方法测得的球镜度、柱镜度、J0和J45差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。与未雾视相比,两种雾视方法测得的球镜度均较低(P<0.01)。两种雾视方法测得球镜度、柱镜度的组内相关系数分别为0.99和0.95,一致性极好;J0和J45的组内相关系数分别为0.36和0.15,一致性较差。结论 “单眼雾视”与“双眼同时雾视”主观验光在球镜度和柱镜度方面具有良好的一致性和可互换性。考虑到检查效率,建议临床优先选用“双眼同时雾视”方法。

关键词: 单眼雾视, 双眼同时雾视, 主观验光

Abstract: Objective To compare the clinical agreement of subjective refraction results obtained with “monocular fogging” versus “binocular simultaneous fogging”, thereby providing evidence for selecting the fogging method in clinical practice. Methods In this diagnostic test study, 62 volunteers aged 17-23 years from North Sichuan Medical College were enrolled in November 2023 and randomly assigned to two groups. Each participant underwent both “monocular fogging” and “binocular simultaneous fogging” subjective refraction, with a baseline non-fogging subjective refraction performed on the right eye before testing as control. Differences in spherical power, cylindrical power, and astigmatic vector components J0 and J45 between the two fogging methods were compared. Agreement was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient(ICC)and Bland-Altman plots. Results No statistically significant differences were found in spherical power, cylindrical power, J0, or J45 between the two fogging methods(P>0.05). Compared with non-fogging refraction, both fogging methods yielded lower spherical powers(P<0.01). The ICCs for spherical power and cylindrical power between the two fogging methods were 0.99 and 0.95, indicating excellent agreement, while those for J0 and J45 were 0.36 and 0.15, indicating poor agreement. Conclusion “Monocular fogging” and “binocular simultaneous fogging” show excellent agreement and interchangeability for spherical and cylindrical power measurements in subjective refraction. Given the higher efficiency, “binocular simultaneous fogging” is recommended for clinical priority.

Key words: Monocular fogging, Binocular simultaneous fogging, Subjective refraction

中图分类号:

R778.2

周桂梅,管琪,杨蓉,但洋,李建虹,刘鹏,熊馨颖,李雪,谭韵琪,廖萱. 单眼雾视与双眼同时雾视主观验光结果比较[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2026, 40(3): 87-91.

ZHOU Guimei, GUAN Qi, YANG Rong, DAN Yang, LI Jianhong, LIU Peng, XIONG Xinying, LI Xue, TAN Yunqi, LIAO Xuan. Comparison of subjective refraction results between monocular fogging and binocular simultaneous fogging[J]. Journal of Otolaryngology and Ophthalmology of Shandong University, 2026, 40(3): 87-91.

参考文献

[1] Camp AS, Shane TS, Kang JL, et al. Evaluating self-refraction and ready-made spectacles for treatment of uncorrected refractive error[J]. Ophthalmic Epidemiol, 2018, 25(5/6): 392-398. doi:10.1080/09286586.2018.1500615
[2] Elliott DB. What is the appropriate gold standard test for refractive error?[J]. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt, 2017, 37(2): 115-117. doi:10.1111/opo.12360
[3] Logan NS, Radhakrishnan H, Cruickshank FE, et al. IMI accommodation and binocular vision in myopia development and progression[J]. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2021, 62(5): 4. doi:10.1167/iovs.62.5.4
[4] Manna P, Karmakar S, Bhardwaj GK, et al. Accommodative spasm and its different treatment approaches: a systematic review[J]. Eur J Ophthalmol, 2023, 33(3): 1273-1286. doi:10.1177/11206721221136438
[5] Lin Z, Vasudevan B, Ciuffreda KJ, et al. The difference between cycloplegic and non-cycloplegic autorefraction and its association with progression of refractive error in Beijing urban children[J]. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt, 2017, 37(4): 489-497. doi:10.1111/opo.12381
[6] Turull-Mallofré A, García-Guerra CE, Mestre C, et al. Influence of power and the time of application of fogging lenses on accommodation[J]. Biomed Opt Express, 2023, 14(10): 5488-5498. doi:10.1364/boe.486442
[7] 瞿佳. 眼视光学理论和方法[M]. 3版. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2018: 83
[8] 齐备. 眼镜验光员-高级[M]. 北京: 中国劳动社会保障出版社, 2008: 96
[9] Thibos LN, Wheeler W, Horner D. Power vectors: an application of Fourier analysis to the description and statistical analysis of refractive error[J]. Optom Vis Sci, 1997, 74(6): 367-375. doi:10.1002/j.1538-9235.1997.tb04707.x
[10] Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research[J]. J Chiropr Med, 2016, 15(2): 155-163. doi:10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
[11] Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies[J]. Stat Methods Med Res, 1999, 8(2): 135-160. doi:10.1191/096228099673819272
[12] Carracedo G, Carpena-Torres C, Pastrana C, et al. Accuracy and precision of automated subjective refraction in young hyperopes under cycloplegia[J]. J Optom, 2023, 16(4): 252-260. doi:10.1016/j.optom.2023.03.001
[13] Liu XT, Ye L, Chen C, et al. Evaluation of the necessity for cycloplegia during refraction of Chinese children between 4 and 10 years old[J]. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus, 2020, 57(4): 257-263. doi:10.3928/01913913-20200407-01
[14] Wilson S, Ctori I, Shah R, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis on the agreement of non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic refraction in children[J]. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt, 2022, 42(6): 1276-1288. doi:10.1111/opo.13022
[15] Guo XX, Shakarchi AF, Block SS, et al. Noncycloplegic compared with cycloplegic refraction in a Chicago school-aged population[J]. Ophthalmology, 2022, 129(7): 813-820. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2022.02.027
[16] Lin JJ, Chen T, Lin ZQ, et al. Optical fogging is an effective method of reducing overestimation of myopia[J]. Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther, 2025, 55: 104751. doi:10.1016/j.pdpdt.2025.104751
[17] Sha J, Fedtke C, Tilia D, et al. Effect of cylinder power and axis changes on vision in astigmatic participants[J]. Clin Optom, 2019, 11: 27-38. doi:10.2147/OPTO.S190120

多维度评价

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

单眼雾视与双眼同时雾视主观验光结果比较

Comparison of subjective refraction results between monocular fogging and binocular simultaneous fogging

PDF (PC)

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 1

多维度评价

本文评价

推荐阅读 0