Literature DB >> 20625052

Use of visual acuity to screen for significant refractive errors in adolescents: is it reliable?

Jody Fay Leone1, Paul Mitchell, Ian George Morgan, Annette Kifley, Kathryn Ailsa Rose.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To detect significant refractive error in a population-based random cluster sample of 12-year-old schoolchildren by using sensitivity and specificity of uncorrected visual acuity (VA).
METHODS: The Sydney Myopia Study randomly selected 21 secondary schools stratified by socioeconomic status. All year 7 students (mean age, 12.7 years) were invited to participate. We tested VA monocularly, unaided at 2.44 m, using a retroilluminated logMAR chart. Cycloplegic autorefraction (induced with instillation of cyclopentolate hydrochloride, 1%) was used to define clinically significant refractive error as a spherical equivalent of -1.00 diopters (D) or less for myopia; at least +2.00 D for hyperopia; and -1.00 D or less cylinder power for astigmatism.
RESULTS: Data for both eyes were pooled for a total of 4497 observations. The sensitivity and specificity for all clinically significant refractive errors at the best VA cutoff level of 53 letters (6/6(-2)) were 72.2% and 93.3%, respectively. Myopia had the highest sensitivity and specificity of any of the refractive errors for detection using VA (97.8% and 97.1%, respectively, for a 45-letter VA cutoff [6/9.5]). The best VA cutoffs for hyperopia and astigmatism were 57 (6/6(+2)) and 55 (6/6) letters, respectively, with sensitivities of 69.2% and 77.4%, respectively, and specificities of 58.1% and 75.4%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: In this adolescent group, a VA cutoff of 6/9.5 or less detects myopic refractive error reliably. However, there is no reliable VA cutoff for clinically significant hyperopia or astigmatism. Improved VA screening methods are required to improve detection of these conditions. Even so, with the methods described herein, the prevalence of uncorrected VA may provide a reasonably accurate estimate of the prevalence of myopia.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20625052     DOI: 10.1001/archophthalmol.2010.134

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0003-9950


  24 in total

1.  Increases in the prevalence of reduced visual acuity and myopia in Chinese children in Guangzhou over the past 20 years.

Authors:  F Xiang; M He; Y Zeng; J Mai; K A Rose; I G Morgan
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2013-09-06       Impact factor: 3.775

2.  Comparison of photorefraction, autorefractometry and retinoscopy in children.

Authors:  Goktug Demirci; Banu Arslan; Mustafa Özsütçü; Mustafa Eliaçık; Gokhan Gulkilik
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-10-10       Impact factor: 2.031

3.  Epidemiology, genetics and treatments for myopia.

Authors:  Lei Yu; Zhi-Kui Li; Jin-Rong Gao; Jian-Rong Liu; Chang-Tai Xu
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2011-12-18       Impact factor: 1.779

4.  Axial length/corneal radius ratio: association with refractive state and role on myopia detection combined with visual acuity in Chinese schoolchildren.

Authors:  Xiangui He; Haidong Zou; Lina Lu; Rong Zhao; Huijuan Zhao; Qiangqiang Li; Jianfeng Zhu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-02-18       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Why are we not doing retinoscopy in the school eye screening? Is distant visual acuity a sensitive tool for making referrals?

Authors:  Tonmoy Chottopadhyay; Hardeep Kaur; Amit J Shinde; Parikshit M Gogate
Journal:  Saudi J Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-11-17

6.  Association of Visual Impairment With Economic Development Among Chinese Schoolchildren.

Authors:  Catherine Jan; Rongbin Xu; Dongmei Luo; Xiuqin Xiong; Yi Song; Jun Ma; Randall S Stafford
Journal:  JAMA Pediatr       Date:  2019-07-01       Impact factor: 16.193

7.  Self correction of refractive error among young people in rural China: results of cross sectional investigation.

Authors:  Mingzhi Zhang; Riping Zhang; Mingguang He; Wanling Liang; Xiaofeng Li; Lingbing She; Yunli Yang; Graeme Mackenzie; Joshua D Silver; Leon Ellwein; Bruce Moore; Nathan Congdon
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2011-08-09

8.  Visual acuity measures do not reliably detect childhood refractive error--an epidemiological study.

Authors:  Lisa O'Donoghue; Alicja R Rudnicka; Julie F McClelland; Nicola S Logan; Kathryn J Saunders
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-03-28       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 9.  Vision screening for correctable visual acuity deficits in school-age children and adolescents.

Authors:  Jennifer R Evans; Priya Morjaria; Christine Powell
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-02-15

10.  Uncorrected Refractive Error and Distance Visual Acuity in Children Aged 6 to 14 Years.

Authors:  Robert N Kleinstein; Donald O Mutti; Loraine T Sinnott; Lisa A Jones-Jordan; Susan A Cotter; Ruth E Manny; J Daniel Twelker; Karla Zadnik
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2021-01-01       Impact factor: 2.106

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.