Vision Screening, Vision Disorders, and Impacts of Hyperopia in Young Children: Outcomes of the Vision in Preschoolers (VIP) and Vision in Preschoolers - Hyperopia in Preschoolers (VIP-HIP) Studies

Detection of significant vision conditions in children using QuickSee wavefront autorefractor

PURPOSE

This study evaluated the ability of QuickSee to detect children at risk for significant vision conditions (significant refractive error [RE], amblyopia and strabismus).

METHODS

Non-cycloplegic refraction (using QuickSee without and with +2 dioptre (D) fogging lenses) and unaided binocular near visual acuity (VA) were measured in 4- to 12-year-old children. Eye examination findings (VA, cover testing and cycloplegic retinoscopy) were used to determine the presence of vision conditions. QuickSee performance was summarised by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity for various levels of RE. QuickSee referral criteria for each vision condition were chosen to maximise sensitivity at a specificity of approximately 85%-90%. Sensitivity and specificity to detect vision conditions were calculated using multiple criteria. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the benefit of adding near VA (6/12 or worse) for detecting hyperopia. A paired t-test compared QuickSee without and with fogging lenses.

RESULTS

The mean age was 8.2 (±2.5) years (n = 174). RE ranged up to 9.25 D myopia, 8 D hyperopia, 5.25 D astigmatism and 3.5 D anisometropia. The testability of the QuickSee was 94.3%. AUC was ≥0.92 (excellent) for each level of RE. For the detection of any RE, sensitivity and specificity were 84.2% and 87.3%, respectively, using modified Orinda criteria and 94.5% and 78.2%, respectively, using the American Academy for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus (AAPOS) guidelines. For the detection of any significant vision condition, the sensitivity and specificity of QuickSee were 81.1% and 87.9%, respectively, using modified Orinda criteria and 93% and 78.6%, respectively, using AAPOS criteria. There was no significant benefit of adding near VA to QuickSee for the detection of hyperopia ≥+2.00 (p = 0.34). There was no significant difference between QuickSee measurements of hyperopic refractive error with and without fogging lenses (difference = -0.09 D; p = 0.51).

CONCLUSIONS

QuickSee had high discriminatory power for detecting children with hyperopia, myopia, astigmatism, anisometropia, any significant refractive error or any significant vision condition.

Efficacy and safety of small-incision corneal intrastromal lenticule implantation for hyperopia correction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

To assess the efficacy and safety of intrastromal lenticule implantation for the treatment of hyperopia.

Methods

A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Internet, and Wan Fang Database identified studies on small-incision intrastromal lenticule implantation for hyperopia correction until January 2023. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool was used to assess the quality of the retrospective research, and the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) was used to assess the quality of the prospective research. This study included postoperative visual outcomes, corneal morphology, and biomechanical outcomes.

Results

A total of 456 articles were identified, of which 10 were included in the meta-analysis. Ten single-arm studies involving 190 eyes were included. A meta-analysis demonstrated that corneal intrastromal lenticule implantation treatment significantly improved hyperopia. Uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) significantly improved compared to the preoperative value (p = 0.027), corrected distance visual acuity showed no difference compared to the preoperative value (p = 0.27), and 87% eyes have no loss of one or more lines in the Snellen lines of CDVA (p < 0.00001). There was a significant difference between the spherical equivalent refractive (SE) and preoperative examination (p < 0.00001), 52% of eyes had ±0.5 diopters (D) postoperative SE (p < 0.00001), and 74% eyes had ±1.0 D postoperative SE (p < 0.00001). The central corneal thickness (CCT) increased by 72.68 μm compared to that preoperatively (p < 0.00001), and corneal curvature increased by 4.18D (p < 0.00001). The Q-value decreased by 0.82 (p < 0.00001), and higher-order aberration (HOA) decreased by 0.66 (p < 0.00001).

Conclusion

Small-incision intrastromal lenticule implantation may be an effective solution for correcting hyperopia. The effect of improved vision is significant, but further exploration is needed for changes in corneal biomechanics and long-term safety.Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42023432343.

Orthokeratology vs. orthokeratology combined with atropine for the control of myopia in children: systematic review

The purpose of this investigation is to determine the efficacy of orthokeratology (OK) compared to orthokeratology combined with atropine (AOK) for the control of myopia in children. A systematic review that included systematic reviews with meta-analyses, as well as randomized and controlled clinical trials, was carried out in the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, Taylor & Francis, Science Direct databases, as well as a manual search. Of the Q1-Q4 journals of the Scimago Journal & Country Rank, published in the last 5 years in English and Spanish. Eighteen studies that met the eligibility criteria were considered. The articles selected included 6,866 patients for analysis, where orthokeratology combined with 0.01% atropine was found to be more effective due to its ability to reduce the progression of myopia and axial elongation. In our investigation, it was determined that there could be an additive effect in the combination of 0.01% atropine with orthokeratology in a period of 1-2 years of treatment in patients with mild myopia; however, more multiethnic studies should be carried out, in where a correct evaluation of the progression of myopia, genetic and environmental factors that may influence the results is considered.

Development and validation of a questionnaire for assessing parents' health literacy regarding vision screening for children: a Delphi study

Preschool vision screening is recommended to reduce the incidence of amblyopia that persists into adulthood. However, parent's perceptions regarding the importance of screening and early intervention may constitute a significant barrier to seeking vision exams and pursuing treatment. The aim of this study is to develop and validate a questionnaire for assessing parent's awareness, perception and health literacy of children's vision tests. The questionnaire was developed using the Delphi method with experts from the fields of pediatric ophthalmology, optometry, orthoptics, pediatric medicine, social sciences and Mother and Child Health Care centers. Experts were provided with drafts of the questions iteratively in three rounds until a consensus was reached independently on the relevant items, coherently language and redundancies. For the first, second and third stages of the Delphi process, 17, 15 and 13 experts participated in the panel respectively. Validity was achieved by wide consensus among the panel on the relevance of each question, of 75%, 85% and 90%, for the three rounds respectively. Here we describe the final questionnaire, EYES: Evaluating Young-Children Eye health Survey, which includes 31 questions regarding demographics, ocular history, parental health literacy, and perceptions of vision and vison exams.

Refractive prescribing for preschool children by optometrists in England

PURPOSE

Correction of refractive error in children is important for visual and educational development. The aim of this questionnaire-based study was to explore paediatric refractive correction by optometrists in England.

METHODS

An online questionnaire was piloted and distributed to optometrists in England. The questionnaire asked about respondents' characteristics (such as type of practice), management of refractive error in 1- and 3-year-old children and sources of information used as a basis for decisions on prescribing refractive error in children.

RESULTS

Two hundred and ninety-three questionnaires were returned, although only 139 (47%) were fully completed. In an average month, about half of respondents examined no children between 0 and 2 years of age, and about half examined no more than five children aged 3-4 years. A significant proportion indicated they would refer children aged 1 or 3 years with refractive error and no other signs or symptoms into the hospital eye service. Almost a quarter would prescribe in full or in part an isometropic refractive correction of +2.00 D for a 3-year-old (within the normal range) with no other signs or symptoms, suggesting a degree of unnecessary prescribing. Almost all would act in cases of clinically significant refractive error. Respondents made similar use of their colleagues, optometric or postgraduate/continuing education, professional guidance and peer-reviewed research as sources of evidence on which to base decisions about prescribing for paediatric refractive errors. Most reported 'never' or 'rarely' using Cochrane reviews.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest optometrists often defer management of paediatric refractive error to the hospital eye service, with implications in terms of underutilisation of community optometric expertise and burden on the National Health Service. In some cases, the results indicate a mismatch between respondents' reported management and existing guidance/guidelines on paediatric prescribing.