AIM: To investigate the prevalence of, and demographic associations with, uncorrected refractive error (URE) in an older British population. METHODS: Data from 4428 participants, aged 48-89 years, who attended an eye examination in the third health check of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer-Norfolk study and had also undergone an ophthalmic examination were assessed. URE was defined as ≥1 line improvement of visual acuity with pinhole-correction in the better eye in participants with LogMar presenting visual acuity (PVA) <0.3 (PVA <6/12). Refractive error was measured using an autorefractor without cycloplegia. Myopia was defined as spherical equivalent ≤-0.5 dioptre, and hypermetropia ≥0.5 dioptre. RESULTS: Adjusted to the 2010 midyear British population, the prevalence of URE in this Norfolk population was 1.9% (95% CI 0.6% to 3.1%). Lower self-rated distance vision was correlated with higher prevalence of URE (p(trend)<0.001). In a multivariate logistic regression model adjusting for age, gender, retirement status, educational level and social class, independent significant associations with URE were increasing age (p(trend)<0.001) and having hypermetropic or myopic refractive error. Wearing distance spectacles was inversely associated with URE (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.55, p<0.001). There were 3063 people (69.2%) who wore spectacles/contact lenses for distance vision. Spectacle wear differed according to type of refractive error (p<0.001), and use rose with increasing severity of refractive error (p(trend)<0.001). CONCLUSION: Although refractive error is common, the prevalence of URE was found to be low in this population reflecting a low prevalence of PVA<0.3.
AIM: To investigate the prevalence of, and demographic associations with, uncorrected refractive error (URE) in an older British population. METHODS: Data from 4428 participants, aged 48-89 years, who attended an eye examination in the third health check of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer-Norfolk study and had also undergone an ophthalmic examination were assessed. URE was defined as ≥1 line improvement of visual acuity with pinhole-correction in the better eye in participants with LogMar presenting visual acuity (PVA) <0.3 (PVA <6/12). Refractive error was measured using an autorefractor without cycloplegia. Myopia was defined as spherical equivalent ≤-0.5 dioptre, and hypermetropia ≥0.5 dioptre. RESULTS: Adjusted to the 2010 midyear British population, the prevalence of URE in this Norfolk population was 1.9% (95% CI 0.6% to 3.1%). Lower self-rated distance vision was correlated with higher prevalence of URE (p(trend)<0.001). In a multivariate logistic regression model adjusting for age, gender, retirement status, educational level and social class, independent significant associations with URE were increasing age (p(trend)<0.001) and having hypermetropic or myopic refractive error. Wearing distance spectacles was inversely associated with URE (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.55, p<0.001). There were 3063 people (69.2%) who wore spectacles/contact lenses for distance vision. Spectacle wear differed according to type of refractive error (p<0.001), and use rose with increasing severity of refractive error (p(trend)<0.001). CONCLUSION: Although refractive error is common, the prevalence of URE was found to be low in this population reflecting a low prevalence of PVA<0.3.
Authors: J C van der Pols; C J Bates; P V McGraw; J R Thompson; M Reacher; A Prentice; S Finch Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Robert N Kleinstein; Lisa A Jones; Sandral Hullett; Soonsi Kwon; Robert J Lee; Nina E Friedman; Ruth E Manny; Donald O Mutti; Julie A Yu; Karla Zadnik Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2003-08
Authors: Phillippa M Cumberland; Yanchun Bao; Pirro G Hysi; Paul J Foster; Christopher J Hammond; Jugnoo S Rahi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-10-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Katie M Williams; Virginie J M Verhoeven; Phillippa Cumberland; Geir Bertelsen; Christian Wolfram; Gabriëlle H S Buitendijk; Albert Hofman; Cornelia M van Duijn; Johannes R Vingerling; Robert W A M Kuijpers; René Höhn; Alireza Mirshahi; Anthony P Khawaja; Robert N Luben; Maja Gran Erke; Therese von Hanno; Omar Mahroo; Ruth Hogg; Christian Gieger; Audrey Cougnard-Grégoire; Eleftherios Anastasopoulos; Alain Bron; Jean-François Dartigues; Jean-François Korobelnik; Catherine Creuzot-Garcher; Fotis Topouzis; Cécile Delcourt; Jugnoo Rahi; Thomas Meitinger; Astrid Fletcher; Paul J Foster; Norbert Pfeiffer; Caroline C W Klaver; Christopher J Hammond Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2015-03-18 Impact factor: 8.082
Authors: Michal S Nowak; Piotr Jurowski; Andrzej Grzybowski; Janusz Smigielski Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-01-08 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Darren Shickle; Tracey M Farragher; Chris J Davey; Sarah V Slade; James Syrett Journal: J Public Health (Oxf) Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 2.341
Authors: Anthony P Khawaja; Michelle P Y Chan; Shabina Hayat; David C Broadway; Robert Luben; David F Garway-Heath; Justin C Sherwin; Jennifer L Y Yip; Nichola Dalzell; Nicholas J Wareham; Kay-Tee Khaw; Paul J Foster Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2013-03-19 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Shabina A Hayat; Robert Luben; Victoria L Keevil; Stephanie Moore; Nichola Dalzell; Amit Bhaniani; Anthony P Khawaja; Paul Foster; Carol Brayne; Nicholas J Wareham; Kay-Tee Khaw Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2013-06-14 Impact factor: 7.196