{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023195876288659795, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02190721649484536, 'mean_word_length': 4.647272727272727, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A comparison of three subjective tests for astigmatism and their interexaminer reliabilities.

BACKGROUND
Astigmatism is a common cause of blurred vision and asthenopia. Several different tests for the measurement of astigmatism have been described in the literature, but there are few studies that have compared the results of various tests.


METHODS
The results of three astigmatism tests performed on 40 subjects by two examiners were compared. Two of the tests, the Jackson cross cylinder (JCC) and the Humphriss immediate contrast (HIC), utilized distance targets; one test, the Pratt test, involved a near target.


RESULTS
The mean differences between all tests were less than 0.25D. There was a slight tendency for higher cylinder power to be found on the Pratt test. The three tests agreed within +/- 0.25D on cylinder power 80 to 98 percent of the time and within 10 degrees of cylinder axis 85 to 98 percent of the time. Interexaminer reliability showed mean differences less than 0.12D for each of the three tests, agreement within +/- 0.25D on cylinder power 88 to 90 percent of the time and within 10 degrees on cylinder axis 85 to 93 percent of the time.


CONCLUSIONS
The results suggested that any of the three techniques could be substituted for another for astigmatism testing. On theoretical grounds, a binocular refraction method for cylinder axis determination, such as the HIC, is advisable for patients with cyclophorias and significant amounts of astigmatism. The results showed good reliability for each of the three methods.