Optical And Nonoptical Aids For Reading And Writing In Individuals With Acquired Low Vision.

To evaluate the use of optical and nonoptical aids during reading and writing activities in individuals with acquired low vision. This study was performed using descriptive and cross-sectional surveys. The data collection instrument was created with structured questions that were developed from an exploratory study and a previous test based on interviews, and it evaluated the following variables: personal characteristics, use of optical and nonoptical aids, and activities that required the use of optical and nonoptical aids. The study population included 30 subjects with acquired low vision and visual acuities of 20/200-20/400. Most subjects reported the use of some optical aids (60.0%). Of these 60.0%, the majority (83.3%) cited spectacles as the most widely used optical aid. The majority (63.3%) of subjects also reported the use of nonoptical aids, the most frequent ones being letter magnification (68.4%), followed by bringing the objects closer to the eyes (57.8%). Subjects often used more than one nonoptical aid. The majority of participants reported the use of optical and nonoptical aids during reading activities, highlighting the use of spectacles, magnifying glasses, and letter magnification; however, even after the use of these aids, we found that the subjects often needed to read the text more than once to understand it. During writing activities, all subjects reported the use of optical aids, while most stated that they did not use nonoptical aids for such activities.

Comparison between the 1% and 2% ibopamine provocative test in primary open-angle glaucoma patients: sensitivity, specificity and tolerability

PURPOSE: To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) rise in normal individuals and primary open-angle glaucoma patients and the safety and efficacy of ibopamine eye drops in different concentrations as a provocative test for glaucoma. METHODS: Glaucoma patients underwent (same eye) the ibopamine provocative test with two concentrations, 1% and 2%, in a random sequence at least 3 weeks apart, but not more than 3 months. The normal individuals were randomly submitted to one of the concentrations of ibopamine (1% and 2%). The test was considered positive if there was an IOP rise greater than 3 or 4 mmHg at 30 or 45 minutes to test which subset of the test has the best sensitivity (Se)/specificity (Sp). RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in any of the IOP measurements, comparing 1% with 2% ibopamine. The IOP was significantly higher at 30 and 45 minutes with both concentrations (p<0.001). The best sensitivity/specificity ratio was achieved with the cutoff point set as greater than 3 mmHg at 45 minutes with 2% ibopamine (area under the ROC curve: 0.864, Se: 84.6%; Sp:73.3%). All patients described a slight burning after ibopamine's instillation. CONCLUSION: 2% ibopamine is recommended as a provocative test for glaucoma. Because both concentrations have similar ability to rise IOP, 1% ibopamine may be used to treat ocular hypotony.

A formação de profissionais de educação fisica : alongamento muscular, uma proposta de conteudo

Universidade Estadual de Campinas . Faculdade de Educação Física

A utilização de apoio bibliografico como recurso metodologico para o ensino da Educação Fisica nos niveis fundamental e medio de escolarização na cidade de Catalão-GO

Universidade Estadual de Campinas . Faculdade de Educação Física