PURPOSE: To determine the impact of corrected and uncorrected myopia and hyperopia on visual functioning in an urban Malay population. METHODS: The Singapore Malay Eye Study is a population-based, cross-sectional study of Singaporean Malays aged 40 to 80 years. Myopia was defined as spherical equivalence (SE) <or= -0.50 D, hyperopia as SE > 1.0 D, and emmetropia as SE -0.5 to 1.0 D in the better eye. Uncorrected myopia and hyperopia were defined as at least a 2-line difference between habitual and best corrected VA in persons with myopia or hyperopia, respectively. Visual functioning was assessed with the VF-11 scale. RESULTS: Of 2912 participants, 441 (15.1%) and 213 (7.3%) had corrected or uncorrected hyperopia and 333 (11.4%), and 131 (4.5%) had corrected or uncorrected myopia, respectively. Of those, 249 (8.6%) participants were considered emmetropic with a >2-line difference between habitual and best corrected vision, and 1543 (53.1%) participants had a <or=2-line difference. In linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, educational attainment, ocular conditions, and nonocular comorbidity, only uncorrected myopia was independently associated with poorer overall visual functioning (beta regression coefficient = -0.34; P <or= 0.001) and with activities such as reading street signs (beta = -0.47; 95% CI: -0.62 to -0.33; P < 0.001), recognizing friends (beta = -0.52; 95% CI: -0.67 to -0.37; P < 0.001), and watching television (beta = -0.33; 95% CI: -0.44 to -0.22; P < 0.001). These findings were replicated in a healthy subsample with no other eye conditions and nonocular comorbidities (n = 1112). CONCLUSIONS: Adequate myopia correction can improve participation in daily living and visual functioning in people with myopia. Correction of hyperopia does not have this effect.
PURPOSE: To determine the impact of corrected and uncorrected myopia and hyperopia on visual functioning in an urban Malay population. METHODS: The Singapore Malay Eye Study is a population-based, cross-sectional study of Singaporean Malays aged 40 to 80 years. Myopia was defined as spherical equivalence (SE) <or= -0.50 D, hyperopia as SE > 1.0 D, and emmetropia as SE -0.5 to 1.0 D in the better eye. Uncorrected myopia and hyperopia were defined as at least a 2-line difference between habitual and best corrected VA in persons with myopia or hyperopia, respectively. Visual functioning was assessed with the VF-11 scale. RESULTS: Of 2912 participants, 441 (15.1%) and 213 (7.3%) had corrected or uncorrected hyperopia and 333 (11.4%), and 131 (4.5%) had corrected or uncorrected myopia, respectively. Of those, 249 (8.6%) participants were considered emmetropic with a >2-line difference between habitual and best corrected vision, and 1543 (53.1%) participants had a <or=2-line difference. In linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, educational attainment, ocular conditions, and nonocular comorbidity, only uncorrected myopia was independently associated with poorer overall visual functioning (beta regression coefficient = -0.34; P <or= 0.001) and with activities such as reading street signs (beta = -0.47; 95% CI: -0.62 to -0.33; P < 0.001), recognizing friends (beta = -0.52; 95% CI: -0.67 to -0.37; P < 0.001), and watching television (beta = -0.33; 95% CI: -0.44 to -0.22; P < 0.001). These findings were replicated in a healthy subsample with no other eye conditions and nonocular comorbidities (n = 1112). CONCLUSIONS: Adequate myopia correction can improve participation in daily living and visual functioning in people with myopia. Correction of hyperopia does not have this effect.
Authors: Nazlee Zebardast; Bonnielin K Swenor; Suzanne W van Landingham; Robert W Massof; Beatriz Munoz; Sheila K West; Pradeep Y Ramulu Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2015-03-24 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Robert P Finger; Eva Fenwick; Peggy Pei-Chia Chiang; Michael Petrak; Frank G Holz; Manjula Marella; Ecosse L Lamoureux Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2011-04-05 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Lubaina T Arsiwala; Xinxing Guo; Pradeep Y Ramulu; A Richey Sharrett; Aleksandra Mihailovic; Bonnielin K Swenor; Thomas Mosley; YaNan Dong; Alison G Abraham Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2022-10-06 Impact factor: 6.591
Authors: Justin C Sherwin; Anthony P Khawaja; David Broadway; Robert Luben; Shabina Hayat; Nichola Dalzell; Nicholas J Wareham; Kay-Tee Khaw; Paul J Foster Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2012-04-25 Impact factor: 4.638