Elise B Ciner1, Marjean Taylor Kulp2, Maureen G Maguire3, Maxwell Pistilli3, T Rowan Candy4, Bruce Moore5, Gui-Shuang Ying3, Graham Quinn6, Gale Orlansky7, Lynn Cyert8. 1. Pennsylvania College of Optometry at Salus University, Elkins Park, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: Eciner@salus.edu. 2. The Ohio State University College of Optometry, Columbus, Ohio. 3. University of Pennsylvania, Center for Preventive Ophthalmology & Biostatistics, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4. Indiana University School of Optometry, Bloomington, Indiana. 5. New England College of Optometry, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 7. Pennsylvania College of Optometry at Salus University, Elkins Park, Pennsylvania. 8. Northeastern State University College of Optometry, Tahlequah, Oklahoma.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare visual performance between emmetropic and uncorrected moderately hyperopic preschool-age children without strabismus or amblyopia. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: setting: Multicenter, institutional. patient or study population: Children aged 4 or 5 years. intervention or observation procedures: Visual functions were classified as normal or reduced for each child based on the 95% confidence interval for emmetropic individuals. Hyperopic (≥3.0 diopters [D] to ≤6.0 D in the most hyperopic meridian; astigmatism ≤1.50 D; anisometropia ≤1.0 D) and emmetropic status were determined by cycloplegic autorefraction. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Uncorrected monocular distance and binocular near visual acuity (VA); accommodative response; and near random dot stereoacuity. RESULTS: Mean (± standard deviation) logMAR distance visual acuity (VA) among 248 emmetropic children was better than among 244 hyperopic children for the better (0.05 ± 0.10 vs 0.14 ± 0.11, P < .001) and worse eyes (0.10 ± 0.11 vs 0.19 ± 0.10, P < .001). Mean binocular logMAR near VA was better in emmetropic than in hyperopic children (0.13 ± 0.11 vs 0.21 ± 0.11, P < .001). Mean accommodative response for emmetropic children was lower than for hyperopic subjects for both Monocular Estimation Method (1.03 ± 0.51 D vs 2.03 ± 1.03 D, P < .001) and Grand Seiko (0.46 ± 0.45 D vs 0.99 ± 1.0 D, P < .001). Median near stereoacuity was better in emmetropic than in than hyperopic children (40 sec arc vs 120 sec arc, P < .001). The average number of reduced visual functions was lower in emmetropic than in hyperopic children (0.19 vs 1.0, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: VA, accommodative response, and stereoacuity were significantly reduced in moderate uncorrected hyperopic preschool children compared to emmetropic subjects. Those with higher hyperopia (≥4 D to ≤6 D) were at greatest risk, although more than half of children with lower magnitudes (≥3 D to <4 D) demonstrated 1 or more reductions in function.
PURPOSE: To compare visual performance between emmetropic and uncorrected moderately hyperopic preschool-age children without strabismus or amblyopia. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: setting: Multicenter, institutional. patient or study population: Children aged 4 or 5 years. intervention or observation procedures: Visual functions were classified as normal or reduced for each child based on the 95% confidence interval for emmetropic individuals. Hyperopic (≥3.0 diopters [D] to ≤6.0 D in the most hyperopic meridian; astigmatism ≤1.50 D; anisometropia ≤1.0 D) and emmetropic status were determined by cycloplegic autorefraction. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Uncorrected monocular distance and binocular near visual acuity (VA); accommodative response; and near random dot stereoacuity. RESULTS: Mean (± standard deviation) logMAR distance visual acuity (VA) among 248 emmetropic children was better than among 244 hyperopic children for the better (0.05 ± 0.10 vs 0.14 ± 0.11, P < .001) and worse eyes (0.10 ± 0.11 vs 0.19 ± 0.10, P < .001). Mean binocular logMAR near VA was better in emmetropic than in hyperopic children (0.13 ± 0.11 vs 0.21 ± 0.11, P < .001). Mean accommodative response for emmetropic children was lower than for hyperopic subjects for both Monocular Estimation Method (1.03 ± 0.51 D vs 2.03 ± 1.03 D, P < .001) and Grand Seiko (0.46 ± 0.45 D vs 0.99 ± 1.0 D, P < .001). Median near stereoacuity was better in emmetropic than in than hyperopic children (40 sec arc vs 120 sec arc, P < .001). The average number of reduced visual functions was lower in emmetropic than in hyperopic children (0.19 vs 1.0, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: VA, accommodative response, and stereoacuity were significantly reduced in moderate uncorrected hyperopic preschool children compared to emmetropic subjects. Those with higher hyperopia (≥4 D to ≤6 D) were at greatest risk, although more than half of children with lower magnitudes (≥3 D to <4 D) demonstrated 1 or more reductions in function.
Authors: Donald O Mutti; G Lynn Mitchell; John R Hayes; Lisa A Jones; Melvin L Moeschberger; Susan A Cotter; Robert N Kleinstein; Ruth E Manny; J Daniel Twelker; Karla Zadnik Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Michael X Repka; Susan A Cotter; Roy W Beck; Raymond T Kraker; Eileen E Birch; Donald F Everett; Richard W Hertle; Jonathan M Holmes; Graham E Quinn; Nicholas A Sala; Mitchell M Scheiman; David R Stager; David K Wallace Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Elise B Ciner; Gui-Shuang Ying; Marjean Taylor Kulp; Maureen G Maguire; Graham E Quinn; Deborah Orel-Bixler; Lynn A Cyert; Bruce Moore; Jiayan Huang Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 1.973
Authors: Stacy Ayn Lyons; Lisa A Jones; Jeffrey J Walline; Amelia G Bartolone; Nancy B Carlson; Valerie Kattouf; Monica Harris; Bruce Moore; Donald O Mutti; J Daniel Twelker Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 1.973
Authors: Xuejuan Jiang; Kristina Tarczy-Hornoch; Douglas Stram; Joanne Katz; David S Friedman; James M Tielsch; Saiko Matsumura; Seang-Mei Saw; Paul Mitchell; Kathryn A Rose; Susan A Cotter; Rohit Varma Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2019-02-26 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Jonathan M Holmes; Marjean T Kulp; Trevano W Dean; Donny W Suh; Raymond T Kraker; David K Wallace; David B Petersen; Susan A Cotter; Earl R Crouch; Ingryd J Lorenzana; Benjamin H Ticho; Lisa C Verderber; Katherine K Weise Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2019-06-28 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Maureen G Maguire; Gui-Shuang Ying; Elise B Ciner; Marjean Taylor Kulp; T Rowan Candy; Bruce Moore Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 1.973
Authors: Marjean Taylor Kulp; Elise Ciner; Gui-Shuang Ying; T Rowan Candy; Bruce D Moore; Deborah Orel-Bixler Journal: Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila) Date: 2022-01-18
Authors: Jesús Barrio-Barrio; Elvira Bonet-Farriol; Marta Galdós; Susana Noval; Victoria Pueyo; Charles E Breeze; Jose Luis Santos; Belén Alfonso-Bartolozzi; Sergio Recalde; Ana Patiño-García Journal: J Ophthalmol Date: 2019-02-03 Impact factor: 1.909