PURPOSE: We describe the profile and associations of anisometropia and aniso-astigmatism in a population-based sample of children. METHODS: The Northern Ireland Childhood Errors of Refraction (NICER) study used a stratified random cluster design to recruit a representative sample of children from schools in Northern Ireland. Examinations included cycloplegic (1% cyclopentolate) autorefraction, and measures of axial length, anterior chamber depth, and corneal curvature. χ(2) tests were used to assess variations in the prevalence of anisometropia and aniso-astigmatism by age group, with logistic regression used to compare odds of anisometropia and aniso-astigmatism with refractive status (myopia, emmetropia, hyperopia). The Mann-Whitney U test was used to examine interocular differences in ocular biometry. RESULTS: Data from 661 white children aged 12 to 13 years (50.5% male) and 389 white children aged 6 to 7 years (49.6% male) are presented. The prevalence of anisometropia ≥1 diopters sphere (DS) did not differ statistically significantly between 6- to 7-year-old (8.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.9-13.1) and 12- to 13-year-old (9.4%; 95% CI, 5.9-12.9) children. The prevalence of aniso-astigmatism ≥1 diopters cylinder (DC) did not vary statistically significantly between 6- to 7-year-old (7.7%; 95% CI, 4.3-11.2) and 12- to 13-year-old (5.6%; 95% CI, 0.5-8.1) children. Anisometropia and aniso-astigmatism were more common in 12- to 13-year-old children with hyperopia ≥+2 DS. Anisometropic eyes had greater axial length asymmetry than nonanisometropic eyes. Aniso-astigmatic eyes were more asymmetric in axial length and corneal astigmatism than eyes without aniso-astigmatism. CONCLUSIONS: In this population, there is a high prevalence of axial anisometropia and corneal/axial aniso-astigmatism, associated with hyperopia, but whether these relations are causal is unclear. Further work is required to clarify the developmental mechanism behind these associations.
PURPOSE: We describe the profile and associations of anisometropia and aniso-astigmatism in a population-based sample of children. METHODS: The Northern Ireland Childhood Errors of Refraction (NICER) study used a stratified random cluster design to recruit a representative sample of children from schools in Northern Ireland. Examinations included cycloplegic (1% cyclopentolate) autorefraction, and measures of axial length, anterior chamber depth, and corneal curvature. χ(2) tests were used to assess variations in the prevalence of anisometropia and aniso-astigmatism by age group, with logistic regression used to compare odds of anisometropia and aniso-astigmatism with refractive status (myopia, emmetropia, hyperopia). The Mann-Whitney U test was used to examine interocular differences in ocular biometry. RESULTS: Data from 661 white children aged 12 to 13 years (50.5% male) and 389 white children aged 6 to 7 years (49.6% male) are presented. The prevalence of anisometropia ≥1 diopters sphere (DS) did not differ statistically significantly between 6- to 7-year-old (8.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.9-13.1) and 12- to 13-year-old (9.4%; 95% CI, 5.9-12.9) children. The prevalence of aniso-astigmatism ≥1 diopters cylinder (DC) did not vary statistically significantly between 6- to 7-year-old (7.7%; 95% CI, 4.3-11.2) and 12- to 13-year-old (5.6%; 95% CI, 0.5-8.1) children. Anisometropia and aniso-astigmatism were more common in 12- to 13-year-old children with hyperopia ≥+2 DS. Anisometropic eyes had greater axial length asymmetry than nonanisometropic eyes. Aniso-astigmatic eyes were more asymmetric in axial length and corneal astigmatism than eyes without aniso-astigmatism. CONCLUSIONS: In this population, there is a high prevalence of axial anisometropia and corneal/axial aniso-astigmatism, associated with hyperopia, but whether these relations are causal is unclear. Further work is required to clarify the developmental mechanism behind these associations.
Authors: Marjean Taylor Kulp; Gui-Shuang Ying; Jiayan Huang; Maureen Maguire; Graham Quinn; Elise B Ciner; Lynn A Cyert; Deborah A Orel-Bixler; Bruce D Moore Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 1.973
Authors: Marjean Taylor Kulp; Gui-Shuang Ying; Jiayan Huang; Maureen Maguire; Graham Quinn; Elise B Ciner; Lynn A Cyert; Deborah A Orel-Bixler; Bruce D Moore Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-03-06 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Li Deng; Jane Gwiazda; Ruth E Manny; Mitchell Scheiman; Erik Weissberg; Karen D Fern; Katherine Weise Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-04-03 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Kemal Tekin; Veysel Cankurtaran; Merve Inanc; Mehmet Ali Sekeroglu; Pelin Yilmazbas Journal: Int Ophthalmol Date: 2016-06-04 Impact factor: 2.031
Authors: Jian Feng Wu; Hong Sheng Bi; Shu Mei Wang; Yuan Yuan Hu; Hui Wu; Wei Sun; Tai Liang Lu; Xing Rong Wang; Jost B Jonas Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-12-23 Impact factor: 3.240