PURPOSE: To report visual performance in adults with specific causes of intellectual disability (ID) and to compare the test results to published reports. METHODS: In a large-scale multicenter epidemiologic study of sensory impairments in 1598 adults with ID, the authors performed ocular assessments in 1539 persons. They compared the test results of those with five specific genetic disorders (Angelman syndrome, Prader-Willi syndrome, fragile X syndrome, Williams-Beuren syndrome, and tuberous sclerosis). RESULTS: An overrepresentation of strabismus, low vision, and refractive errors was found. Apart from fragile X syndrome and Prader-Willi syndrome (with in general mild to moderate ID), the other syndrome groups contained one or more subjects with visual impairment or blindness. A number of them had never been seen by an ophthalmologist. CONCLUSIONS: The authors confirm a number of ocular features previously reported by other studies and suggest some additional ocular features. They found increased frequencies of treatable ophthalmologic conditions in the subgroups. Because reliable ocular assessment is feasible for 85% of persons with ID, the results are an incentive to address visual functioning in people with ID in order to correct ocular problems and maximize their possibilities.
PURPOSE: To report visual performance in adults with specific causes of intellectual disability (ID) and to compare the test results to published reports. METHODS: In a large-scale multicenter epidemiologic study of sensory impairments in 1598 adults with ID, the authors performed ocular assessments in 1539 persons. They compared the test results of those with five specific genetic disorders (Angelman syndrome, Prader-Willi syndrome, fragile X syndrome, Williams-Beuren syndrome, and tuberous sclerosis). RESULTS: An overrepresentation of strabismus, low vision, and refractive errors was found. Apart from fragile X syndrome and Prader-Willi syndrome (with in general mild to moderate ID), the other syndrome groups contained one or more subjects with visual impairment or blindness. A number of them had never been seen by an ophthalmologist. CONCLUSIONS: The authors confirm a number of ocular features previously reported by other studies and suggest some additional ocular features. They found increased frequencies of treatable ophthalmologic conditions in the subgroups. Because reliable ocular assessment is feasible for 85% of persons with ID, the results are an incentive to address visual functioning in people with ID in order to correct ocular problems and maximize their possibilities.
Authors: Leah B Townsend; Kelly A Jones; Christopher R Dorsett; Benjamin D Philpot; Spencer L Smith Journal: J Neurodev Disord Date: 2020-10-19 Impact factor: 4.025
Authors: Jessica Duis; Mark Nespeca; Jane Summers; Lynne Bird; Karen G C B Bindels-de Heus; M J Valstar; Marie-Claire Y de Wit; C Navis; Maartje Ten Hooven-Radstaake; Bianca M van Iperen-Kolk; Susan Ernst; Melina Dendrinos; Terry Katz; Gloria Diaz-Medina; Akshat Katyayan; Srishti Nangia; Ronald Thibert; Daniel Glaze; Christopher Keary; Karine Pelc; Nicole Simon; Anjali Sadhwani; Helen Heussler; Anne Wheeler; Caroline Woeber; Margaret DeRamus; Amy Thomas; Emily Kertcher; Lauren DeValk; Kristen Kalemeris; Kara Arps; Carol Baym; Nicole Harris; John P Gorham; Brenda L Bohnsack; Reid C Chambers; Sarah Harris; Henry G Chambers; Katherine Okoniewski; Elizabeth R Jalazo; Allyson Berent; Carlos A Bacino; Charles Williams; Anne Anderson Journal: Mol Genet Genomic Med Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 2.183
Authors: Koji Yashiro; Thorfinn T Riday; Kathryn H Condon; Adam C Roberts; Danilo R Bernardo; Rohit Prakash; Richard J Weinberg; Michael D Ehlers; Benjamin D Philpot Journal: Nat Neurosci Date: 2009-05-10 Impact factor: 24.884
Authors: Rachel F Pilling; Lisa Donaldson; Marek Karas; R Jane Leitch; Howard Bunting; Ravi Naru; Gordon Ilett Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2021-04-08 Impact factor: 3.775