Literature DB >> 32437505

Association of Visual Acuity Improvement With Uncorrected Refractive Error in Patients New to Low Vision Clinics.

Xinxing Guo1, Bonnielin K Swenor1, Judith E Goldstein1.   

Abstract

Importance: There is substantial socioeconomic and individual burden from uncorrected refractive error (URE) and chronic ocular disease. Understanding the association of visual acuity (VA) reduction with URE and the adults most likely to benefit from refraction may help support clinical decision-making in ophthalmologic care and maximize patient outcomes.
Objectives: To assess the magnitude of VA improvement associated with URE among adults under ophthalmic care who obtain low vision rehabilitation (LVR) services and identify the characteristics of the patients who are most likely to experience improvement. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective case series assessed patients 20 years or older who were new to the LVR clinics from August 1, 2013, to December 31, 2015, and who had habitual VA between 20/40 and counting fingers (not including) and underwent refraction. Data analysis was performed from April 4, 2018, to December 20, 2019. Exposures: Patient demographics and clinical data, including habitual and refraction VA, refraction, and disease diagnosis. Habitual VA was categorized as mild (VA worse than 20/40 and at least 20/60), moderate (VA worse than 20/60 and better than 20/200), severe (VA 20/200 or worse and better than 20/500), and profound (VA 20/500 or worse) vision impairment (VI). Main Outcomes and Measures: At least 2-line VA improvement and any VA improvement (≥1-line) by refraction.
Results: Among the 2923 patients new to LVR clinics, 1773 (mean [SD] age, 70 [18.2] years; 1069 [60.3%] female) were included in these analyses. The mean habitual VA was 20/100 (mean [SD], 0.67 [0.36] logMAR). At least 2-line improvement was observed in 493 patients (27.8%), and any VA improvement was seen in 1023 patients (57.7%). At least 2-line improvement was observed in 54 patients (34.8%) with corneal disorders and was more likely seen among patients aged 40 to <65 years compared with those aged 20 to <40 years (odds ratio [OR], 1.57; 95% CI, 1.02-2.41), African American patients compared with white patients (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.08-1.85), or patients with moderate VI compared with mild VI (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.07-1.72). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that URE is prevalent among patients with ocular disease and accessing LVR and that refractive evaluation should be considered for patients with ocular disease and reduced VA, especially working-age adults aged 40 to <65 years, African American patients, and those with moderate VI.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32437505      PMCID: PMC7243166          DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2020.1677

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Ophthalmol        ISSN: 2168-6165            Impact factor:   7.389


  32 in total

1.  Cause-specific prevalence of bilateral visual impairment in Victoria, Australia: the Visual Impairment Project.

Authors:  M R VanNewkirk; L Weih; C A McCarty; H R Taylor
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 12.079

2.  20/40 or Better Visual Acuity After Optic Neuritis: Not as Good as We Once Thought?

Authors:  Sakinah B Sabadia; Rachel C Nolan; Kristin M Galetta; Kannan M Narayana; James A Wilson; Peter A Calabresi; Elliot M Frohman; Steven L Galetta; Laura J Balcer
Journal:  J Neuroophthalmol       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 3.042

3.  Clinically Meaningful Rehabilitation Outcomes of Low Vision Patients Served by Outpatient Clinical Centers.

Authors:  Judith E Goldstein; Mary Lou Jackson; Sandra M Fox; James T Deremeik; Robert W Massof
Journal:  JAMA Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 7.389

4.  Treatment of uncorrected refractive error improves vision-specific quality of life.

Authors:  Anne L Coleman; Fei Yu; Emmett Keeler; Carol M Mangione
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 5.562

5.  Visual function after correction of distance refractive error with ready-made and custom spectacles: a randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Christopher J Brady; Andrea C Villanti; Monica Gandhi; David S Friedman; Lisa Keay
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2012-06-15       Impact factor: 12.079

6.  Improvement of visual acuity by refraction in a low-vision population.

Authors:  Janet S Sunness; Jaafar El Annan
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2010-03-15       Impact factor: 12.079

7.  Blindness and visual impairment in an American urban population. The Baltimore Eye Survey.

Authors:  J M Tielsch; A Sommer; K Witt; J Katz; R M Royall
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1990-02

8.  Assessment of vision-related quality of life in an older population subsample: The Blue Mountains Eye Study.

Authors:  Ee-Munn Chia; Paul Mitchell; Elvis Ojaimi; Elena Rochtchina; Jie Jin Wang
Journal:  Ophthalmic Epidemiol       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 1.648

9.  Vision insurance, eye care visits, and vision impairment among working-age adults in the United States.

Authors:  Yi-Jhen Li; Sudha Xirasagar; Chaiporn Pumkam; Malavika Krishnaswamy; Charles L Bennett
Journal:  JAMA Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 7.389

10.  Racial disparity of eye examinations among the U.S. working-age population with diabetes: 2002-2009.

Authors:  Qian Shi; Yingnan Zhao; Vivian Fonseca; Marie Krousel-Wood; Lizheng Shi
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2014-02-26       Impact factor: 19.112

View more
  1 in total

1.  Using Electronic Clinical Decision Support to Examine Vision Rehabilitation Referrals and Practice Guidelines in Ophthalmology.

Authors:  Judith E Goldstein; Xinxing Guo; Bonnielin K Swenor; Michael V Boland; Kerry Smith
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2022-10-03       Impact factor: 3.048

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.